Dismissed¶54

Poojarappa @ Poojari v. Shivalinga

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2025RSA/1688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, RSA No.1688 of 2024 (DEC), decided 12-06-2025, Justice H.P. Sandesh. Appellant Poojarappa @ Poojari v. respondents Shivalinga, Krishna, Chandramma and Indiramma. Keywords: Section 100 CPC second appeal dismissed at admission; declaration and permanent injunction; failure to prove title; no documentary evidence; Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional documents rejected; earlier suit O.S.No.15/1982 dismissed; concurrent findings confirmed; plaintiff to stand on own evidence; no substantive question of law framed.

What did the court decide?

Both the Courts have not committed any error: the appellant/plaintiff, though claiming the property belongs to his father, placed nothing on record to prove title, and even the earlier suit documents were not placed on record; accordingly the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit.

Poojarappa @ Poojari Vs Shivalinga — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:20468 RSA No. 1688 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1688 OF 2024 (DEC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

POOJARAPPA @ POOJARI S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶11

R/O UPARABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577228.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SHIVALINGA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶18

KRISHNA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶19

CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶20

INDIRAMMA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:20468 RSA No. 1688 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O UPARABASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577228.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.60/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.450/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TARIKERE.

¶27

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶31

learned counsel for the appellant.

¶32

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court. The factual matrix of the case of

¶33

the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule property belongs to his father and sought for the relief of declaration and also for the permanent injunction. In support of his case, he also got marked the document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and First Appellate Court having taken

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20468 RSA No. 1688 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

note of document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and also particularly mentioning the reasoning in paragraph No.10 comes to the conclusion that though the plaintiff/appellant claims that property belongs to his father and in order to substantiate his contention that property belongs to his father, no document is placed on record. Even the Trial Court also taken note of the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.15/1982 and in respect of the said proceedings also, no document is placed on record and comes to the conclusion that in the absence of any documentary evidence, question of granting the relief of declaration doesn't arise and dismissed the suit.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.60/2019. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal in paragraph Nos.13 considered the grounds and also formulated the point for consideration in the appeal in paragraph No.14 and re-assessed both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and comes to

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20468 RSA No. 1688 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the conclusion that the appellant made out the grounds to condone the delay of 350 days and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court is justified in holding that appellant/plaintiff failed to establish his ownership and possession and also comes to the conclusion that Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff since no document is placed on record with regard to the title is concerned. In the absence of any title documents, question of granting the relief of declaration doesn't arise.

¶41

The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.23 discussed with regard to the documents which have been produced along with application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and those documents are also copy of the plaint, valuation slip, written statement, issues and certified copy of the judgment and decree and also in paragraph No.24 discussed that totally there were three properties are referred in the earlier suit and schedule of the plaint and also comes to the conclusion that item No.3 of the suit schedule property in the present suit and also in

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20468 RSA No. 1688 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the said suit, the father of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 was the defendant of the said suit and having considered the same also, the operative portion of the judgment also taken note of in paragraph No.25 and in respect of the earlier suit that is item No.3, the Appellate Court taken note of the fact that the relief sought for possession and declaration of his title in respect of suit item No.3 was also dismissed in the earlier suit that is in O.S.No.15/1982 and when such being the case, the Appellate Court also not committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶45

Now, the counsel appearing to the appellant in second appeal would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in passing the judgment in coming to the conclusion that defendants are having any right, interest and title over the suit schedule property and that is not the discussion made by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20468 RSA No. 1688 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

re-appreciating the material along with the additional document placed on record, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit since the appellant/plaintiff though claims that the property belongs to the father, nothing is placed on record and even the earlier suit documents are also not placed on record. But, the Appellate Court also re-considered the material when the additional documents are placed before the Appellate Court with regard to the suit in O.S.No.15/1982 and the same is filed in respect of the very suit property when the claim was made for the relief of declaration and possession and the same was dismissed. Even the operative portion of the earlier suit order was also discussed and when such being the case, both the Courts have not committed any error in considering the material on record and also the substantive question of law suggested by the counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20468 RSA No. 1688 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

defendants are having any right, interest and title over a suit schedule property and the same is not the issue in the case while seeking the relief of declaration. The appellant/plaintiff has to make out his case and also stand on his own leg and not on the weakness of the defendant. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the proof of title is concerned, question of granting any relief of declaration doesn't arise and hence no ground is made out to admit and frame substantive question of law.

¶52

In view of the discussions made above, this court is dismissed.

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶56

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Poojarappa @ Poojari v. Shivalinga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poojarappa @ Poojari v. Shivalinga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Krishnamma Vs Rathnamma

Sri S C Amaresh Vs Sri. Adavi Siddaiah

Sri Chandregowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Chikkabasavaiah Vs Smt Shanthamma

Sri. Nanjappa Vs Sri. Range Gowda

Sri. a. Krishnappa Vs Sri J P Narasimha Murthy