Dismissed¶163

Smt Boramma v. Sri Amase Madaiah

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2025RSA/1793/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No.1793/2024, Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), V Srishananda J, decided 12.08.2025 — appeal dismissed; concurrent findings on title/possession upheld; plaintiffs failed to prove Ex.P.1 sale deed (possession never delivered, no revenue-entry transfer, vendor's heirs not examined); First Appellate Court's failure to frame points excused per Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin, 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 826; substantial questions of law (a)-(e) all answered negatively; no monetary reliefs involved.

What did the court decide?

After the sale deed by Mallasheety, the father of the plaintiffs did not apply for transfer of revenue entries; unless he was put into physical possession, proof of the alleged sale deed would not be established, particularly in a suit for declaration. ¶134

Smt Boramma Vs Sri Amase Madaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶163

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law (a): whether the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court were justified in appreciating the evidence and material placed on record. +5 more

¶110

Court's answer

Since it is the plaintiffs who approached the Court seeking declaration and possession, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish title over the suit property.

¶147

Ratio / Principle

¶134

Key takeaways

Plaintiffs were required to establish that they became owners as children of Chikkaveeregowda who purportedly purchased the property vide Ex.P.1 from erstwhile owner Mallashetty; no proper evidence was placed on record to establish this.ratio¶135
Contents of Ex.P.1 make clear that possession of the suit property was not handed over to the father of the plaintiffs; therefore the sale by Mallashetty in favour of Chikkaveeregowda was not established for claiming declaration of ownership.ratio¶139
The plaintiffs' contention that the defendant illegally took possession while O.S.156/2013 was pending is per se incorrect, since Ex.P.1 contains a specific averment that possession was not handed over to the father of the plaintiffs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) by unsuccessful plaintiffs — heirs claiming through Chikkaveeregowda, purchaser under registered sale deed Ex.P.1 dated 23.04.1983 from Mallashetty — against concurrent dismissal of their suit O.S.No.193/2014 (decided 12.04.2023) seeking declaration, possession and permanent injunction over Sy.No.121 measuring 4 acres 29 guntas, Kellamballi village, and of their first appeal RA No.38/2023 (decided 11.11.2024). Held: (i) after the sale deed, the plaintiffs' father never got revenue entries transferred; Ex.P.1 itself records that possession was not handed over to him, so the sale was not proved and, in a declaratory suit, the burden of establishing title lay wholly on the plaintiffs; the plea of possession through tenants (Nanjaiah, Chamaiah, Basavaiah) could not be countenanced; (ii) although the First Appellate Court breached its bounden duty under Order 41 read with Section 96 CPC by not framing points, following Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin, 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 826, such omission alone is no lacuna warranting admission of a second appeal. All five substantial questions of law answered against the appellants; appeal dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1793 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BORAMMA W/O LATE ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶9

SMT. LEELAVATHI D/O LATE ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶10

KUMARI SHILPA D/O LATE LATE ERAIAH

¶11

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. HEMANTH S/O LATE ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶14

APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.2793, 2ND MAIN JAYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 014.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. AMASE MADAIAH S/O LATE MARIMADAIAH,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KALAHALLI VILLLAGE CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶22

SRI. SWAMY S/O CHIKKAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶23

SMT. LAKSHMI S/O CHIKKAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶24

SRI. JAYARAM S/O CHIKKAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 R/AT NO.2793, 2ND MAIN, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 014.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SREENIVASA PATAVARDHAN K.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025)

¶28

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.38/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.193/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGARA.

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

Heard Sri.Vasanthappa, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Sreenivasa Patavardhan K. R., learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶35

Present second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.193/2014 seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction against contesting respondent No.1/defendant and decree of dismissal was confirmed in RA No.38/2023.

¶36

Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶37

3.1. Plaintiffs claiming to be the children of Sri.Eraiah, filed a suit for the relief of declaratory possession and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.121 measuring 4 acres 29 guntas situated in Kellamballi village, Kasaba Hobli,

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Chamarajanagar Taluk bounded on East by land of Devadasaiah, West by land of Kellamballi Dasu, South by oni and North by defendant’s land (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property).

¶41

3.2. Plaintiffs’ laid a claim that one

¶42

Chikkaveeregowda purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1983 from its erstwhile owner – Mallashetty . It is contended that Chikkaveeregowda during his lifetime, appointed Nanjaiah, Chamaiah and Basavaiah to look after the property and cultivating the land on ‘vara’ basis. Said

¶43

Chikkaveeregowda died on 18.10.2004.

¶44

It is further contended that after the death of Chikkaveeregowda, plaintiffs are in joint possession over the suit property as the legal heirs of deceased Chikkaveeregowda.

¶45

It is further contended that plaintiffs tried to improve the suit property by obtaining the loan from

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

financial institutions and tried to secure the revenue documents. At that juncture, they came to know that defendant colluding with the revenue officials and had got Katha of the suit property transferred in his name and thus, plaintiffs had filed the suit.

¶49

It is further contended that defendant had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.156/2013 against Nanjaiah, Chamaiah and Basavaiah and said suit is still pending. In the guise of obtaining the Katha, defendant illegally took possession of the property and he is trying to alienate the property which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration that they are owners of the suit property and possession of the suit property and also permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property.

¶50

Upon receipt of the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto .

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

It is further contended that vendor of the

¶54

plaintiffs did not have any right to execute the sale deed in respect of entire suit property bearing Sy.No.121

¶55

measuring 4 acres 29 guntas.

¶56

It is also contended that said land belongs to one Mallashetty of Kasthur village and he had two daughters and three sons viz., Madashetty, Rangashetty and Mallashetty.

¶57

Among them, Madasheety was in possession and enjoyed 2 acres 16 guntas of land and Madashetty sold 2 acres 2 guntas on the southern side of the property to defendant under registered sale deed dated 19.08.1981.

¶58

It is further contended by defendant that while selling the property, survey number was wrongly mentioned as 120 instead of 121 and after the demise of Madashetty and his wife – Puttamadamma being in possession of 0.14 guntas of the land, supported the

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

defendant for her livelihood and she executed a Will in favour of defendant in respect of remaining 14 guntas of land in favour of defendant on 25.07.2006 and thus, defendant is the owner of the property and suit of the plaintiffs is to be dismissed.

¶62

Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that plaintiffs were unable to place before the Court the original sale deed said to have been executed by Mallashetty in favour of father of the plaintiffs and there were no transfer of the revenue entries nor there was transfer of possession as is contended by the plaintiffs.

¶63

Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.38/2023.

¶64

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the oral and

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶68

Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court, in this appeal on following grounds and has raised following substantial questions of law:

¶69

GROUNDS

¶70

It is submitted that, the Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court, dismissed the suit of the Appellants, without considering the material on record and without assigning any valid reasons. The Lower Appellate Court did not re-assess the evidence on record and did not make any efforts to find out the prose and cons. Hence Judgment passed by the Lower Appellant Court requires to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

¶71

It is submitted that, the Lower appellate Court did not consider the registered sale deed in the name of Chikkaveeregowda executed by Sri Mallesh shetty son of Malla shetty, dated:23-041983. It is submitted that, the sale deed in the name of Chikkaveeregowda is not at all set aside

¶72

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

or it was challenged either by this defendant No.1 or Mallesh shetty son of Malla shetty. But the Trail Court and Lower Appellate Court come to extreme conclusion that, Chikkaveeregowda not paid the entire sale consideration in favour of his Vendor is not sustainable either in law or facts of the case, requires to be set aside by this Hon'ble court.

¶76

� It is submitted that, if at all the sale consideration is payable by Chikkaveeregowda his vendor has got every right to recover such due to him, since Chikkaveeeregowda paid entire sale consideration in favour of his vendor, his vendor put Chikkaveeregowda in possession of the suit schedule property and till date Chikkaveeregowda is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Hence Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court or Lower Appellate Court is one sided and without appreciation of real facts of the case. Hence Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court requires to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

¶77

It is submitted that, as per the agreed terms, the purchaser Chikkaveeregowda paid entire sale consideration and obtained the possession of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that,

¶78

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Chikkaveeregowda is in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interference from whom so ever. But Trail Court and Lower Appellate Court come to wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit of the appellants is erroneous. Hence requires to be set aside.

¶81

It is submitted that, Chikkaveeregowda was not put in possession of the suit schedule property by his Vendor then his Vendor would have filed such suit for cancellation of sale deed indicating that, Chikkaveeregowda not paid the sale consideration amount. But in the instant case the vendor of Chikkaveeregowda not at all approached the courts alleging that, he was not received the sale consideration. Hence approach of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court is erroneous and requires to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

¶82

It is submitted that, the recitals of the registered sale deed dated:23-04-1983 in the name of Chikkaveeregowda which is marked as Ex-P-1 clearly indicates that, at schedule mentioned in the sale deed towards Northern side the property belongs to Amase Madaiah. It is submitted that, the defendant herein, taking the advantage that,

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

he purchased the property in Sy No.120/2, measuring 2 Acres 02 Guntas of land from Madashetty son of Mallashetty and created revenue entries in respect of Sy No.121, measuring 4 Acres 29 Guntas and he was alleged that, he is in possession of the suit schedule land and causing interference. This aspect of the matter is not at all considered either by the Trial Court or Lower Appellate Court, hence judgment and decree of the Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court requires to be set be set aside.

¶87

� It is submitted that, the sale deed executed in the name of Chikkaveeregowda is registered document and it has got its presumptive value in the eye of law. It is submitted that, any sale consideration is due to Vendors of Chikkaveeregowda, then vendors of Chikkaveeregowda is entitled to recover any sale consideration under Section 55 sub-clause-4 of the Transfer of property Act. For ready reference section 55[4] of the Act-the Seller is entitled to:a). To the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer: b). Where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchase money, to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer[any transferee without

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

consideration or any transferee with notice of the non-payment), for the amount of the purchasemoney or any part there of remaining unpaid and for interest on such amount or part [from the date on which possession has been delivered]. In terms of aforesaid Section the vendor have statutory charge on suit schedule properties. Such charge would chase the schedule property like a guided missile.

¶92

� It is submitted that, in the instant case the purchaser Chikkaveeregowda already paid entire sale consideration and put Chikkaveeregowda in possession of the suit schedule property by his vendor, the view taken by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court saying that, Chikkaveeregowda is not put in possession of the suit schedule property by his vendor is untenable, which is arbitrary, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence interference of this Hon'ble Court is required to be set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court.

¶93

It is submitted that, admittedly the plaintiff has not sought any relief against his vendor and his vendor also not challenged the sale in favour of

¶94

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

this plaintiff but Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court tried to answer the issue which is not the plea raised by the plaintiff. Hence approach of the trial Court and Lower Appellate Occur is erroneous and requires to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

¶97

� It is submitted that, Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court come to wrong conclusion that, the appellants have not produced the revenue documents indicating the name of purchaser Chikkaveeregowda. It is submitted that, either the Trial Court or Lower Appellate Court not at all considered the presumptive value of the registered document. It is submitted that, the Trial Court not at all considered that, revenue documents will not create title to the property. Hence interference of this Hon'ble Court is required to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court.

¶98

It is submitted that, the Registered Sale deed marked as Ex-P-1 stands in the name of Chikkaveeregowda in respect of Sy No.121, measuring 4 Acres 27 Guntas executed by his vendor Mallesh shetty son of Malla shetty and Registered sale deed marked as Ex-D-1,

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

dated:19-08-1981 stands in the name of defendant Amase Madaiah in respect of Sy No.120/2, measuring 2 Acres 2 Guntas of Land, executed by his Vendor Mada Shetty son of Malla Shetty. It is submitted that, Vendors of Chikkaveeregowda and Amase Madaiah is different and measurement of the properties is different, boundaries is not tallied with the sale deed of Amase Madaiah, but the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that, Chikkaveeregowda not produced the revenue documents showing the suit land is transferred in the name of Chikkaveeregowda, which is against to the law laid down by Apex courts and this Hon'ble Court, hence requires interference of this Hon'ble Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

¶103

It is submitted that, the defendant himself admitted the execution of registered sale deed and recitals of sale deed in respect of Chikkaveeregowda is also indicate that, towards Northern side Amase Madaiah property le defendants property, but the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court saying that, there is no revenue document is forth coming in the name of

¶104

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

Chikkaveeregowda is only the sole ground was considered by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court and dismissed the suit is highly arbitrary and erroneous and requires to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

¶107

It is submitted that. The Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court is one sided. Hence requires to be set aside.

¶108

It is submitted that, the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court is not set aside then it violates the interest of natural justice.

¶109

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

¶110

a) Whether the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court justified in appreciating the evidence on record and material placed on record?.

¶111

b) Whether the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the appellants have not produced the revenue documents?.

¶112

c) Whether the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court justified in come to the conclusion that, the 1" Respondent herein purchased the land in question in Sy No.121 instead of Sy

¶113

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

No.120/2 in the absence of material documents?.

¶116

d) Whether the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court justified and come to the conclusion that, the appellants have not produced the original sale deed?.

¶117

e) Whether the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court justified that, Chikkaveeregowda not paid the remaining sale consideration to his vendor and his vendor was not put in possession of the property?.

¶118

Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating

¶119

the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum argued that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for want of original sale deed and for want of transfer of the revenue records resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.

¶120

He would also contend that the approach of the Trial Court that plaintiffs were unable to establish before the Court that there was no possession of the property

¶121

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

handed over to the vendor of the father of the plaintiffs is incorrect inasmuch as a suit came to be filed by the defendant himself against the tenants appointed by the father of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.156/2013. Therefore, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is incorrect and sought allowing the appeal.

¶124

He would further contend that learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not raise necessary points as the appeal is a continuation of the suit and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court was required to reframe the points and then should have considered the case of the plaintiffs in a proper manner and not raising of necessary points and dismissing the appeal has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.

¶125

Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1/defendant argued that the plaintiffs utterly failed to establish the possession over the suit

¶126

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

property and vendor of the father of the plaintiffs did not possess absolute right in respect of the suit property to convey in favour of the father of the plaintiffs which has been rightly appreciated and reappreciated by both the Courts and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶129

He would further contend that none of the legal representatives of the vendor of the father of the plaintiffs have been examined to prove that vendor of the father of the plaintiffs did possess the right in respect of the suit property whereas the daughter-in-law of the vendor of the father of the plaintiffs has executed a Will in respect of remaining 12½ guntas of the land shows that vendor of the plaintiffs’ father did not possess any right in the suit property and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶130

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶131

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that father of the plaintiffs after the sale deed

¶132

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

was executed by Mallasheety, for the reasons best known to him, did not apply for transfer of revenue entries. According to the plaintiffs, father had let the land to be cultivated by three tenants namely Nanjaiah, Chamaiah and Basavaiah on ‘vara’ basis. Unless the father of the plaintiffs is put into physical possession of the property, proof of the alleged sale deed would not get proved. More so, when the suit is one for declaration.

¶135

In other words, plaintiffs were required to establish that they became the owners of the property being the children of Chikkaveeregowda who said to have purchased the suit property vide Ex.P.1 from his erstwhile owner – Mallashetty. No proper evidence has been placed on record to establish the said aspect of the matter.

¶136

It is pertinent to note that there was a suit filed by defendant in O.S.No.156/2013 against alleged tenants who tried to interfere with the possession of the suit property.

¶137

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

In this regard, it is also pertinent to note the contents of Ex.P.1. Contents of Ex.P.1 makes it clear that the possession of the suit property was not handed over to the father of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the sale made by Mallashetty in favour of the Chikkaveeregowda has not been established by the plaintiffs to claim the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the property being the children of Chikkaveeregowda.

¶140

Further, it is the claim of the plaintiffs that when the suit in O.S.156/2013 was pending, defendant illegally took the possession of the property. Such a contention on behalf of the plaintiffs is per se incorrect in view of the contents of Ex.P.1; wherein there is a specific averment that possession of the property was not handed over to the father of plaintiffs.

¶141

Further, when there is no title at all for the vendor of the father of the plaintiff and there is no transfer of the revenue entries, contention of the plaintiffs that

¶142

21 -

¶143

NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

their father was in possession of the property through alleged the tenants cannot be countenanced in law.

¶146

Defendants have placed contra title is placed on record. But, learned counsel for the appellants contended that contra title is also not proved and therefore, suit should have been decreed.

¶147

In this regard, it is pertinent to note that it is the plaintiffs who have approached the Court with a prayer for declaration and possession in respect of suit property. Therefore, burden is on the plaintiffs to establish title over the suit property so also the plaintiffs are entitled to take possession of the property from the hands of the defendant by virtue of the ownership transferred by Mallashetty in favour of Chikkaveeregowda vide Ex.P.1.

¶148

Since Ex.P.1 is not proved, either by examining

¶149

the vendor’s legal representatives or by any other method known to law and in the absence of any transfer of revenue entries, dismissal of the suit by the learned Trial

¶150

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper.

¶153

No doubt, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not choose to raise any necessary points as is contemplated under Order 41 read with Section 96 of CPC.

¶154

Being the First Appellate Court, it was the bounden duty of the First Appellate Court to raise necessary points and reappreciate the case of the plaintiffs both on law and facts.

¶155

However, mere non raising of the necessary points itself in every case would not be a lacuna to admit the appeal for further consideration in view of the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nafees Ahmad and Another v. Soinuddin and Others reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 826 .

¶156

NC: 2025:KHC:31689 RSA No. 1793 of 2024

¶157

23 -

¶158

HC-KAR

¶159

Therefore, none of the substantial questions of

¶160

law raised in the appeal memorandum would be sufficient enough to admit the appeal for further consideration.

¶161

Accordingly, the following:

¶162

ORDER

¶163

Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed .

¶164

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶165

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: BHK

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Substantial question of law (a): whether the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court were justified in appreciating the evidence and material placed on record.¶110
The court held
Since it is the plaintiffs who approached the Court seeking declaration and possession, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish title over the suit property.ratio¶147
2.
Substantial question of law (b): whether both courts were justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellants produced no revenue documents.¶111
The court held
After the sale deed by Mallasheety, the father of the plaintiffs did not apply for transfer of revenue entries; unless he was put into physical possession, proof of the alleged sale deed would not be established, particularly in a suit for declaration.ratio¶134
3.
Substantial question of law (c): whether both courts were justified in concluding that respondent No.1 purchased land in Sy.No.121 instead of Sy.No.120/2 in the absence of material documents.¶112
4.
Substantial question of law (d): whether both courts were justified in concluding that the appellants have not produced the original sale deed.¶116
The court held
Plaintiffs were required to establish that they became owners as children of Chikkaveeregowda who purportedly purchased the property vide Ex.P.1 from erstwhile owner Mallashetty; no proper evidence was placed on record to establish this.ratio¶135
5.
Substantial question of law (e): whether both courts were justified in holding that Chikkaveeregowda did not pay the remaining sale consideration to his vendor and was not put in possession of the property.¶117
The court held
Contents of Ex.P.1 make clear that possession of the suit property was not handed over to the father of the plaintiffs; therefore the sale by Mallashetty in favour of Chikkaveeregowda was not established for claiming declaration of ownership.ratio¶139
6.
Whether the First Appellate Court's failure to raise/reframe necessary points, treating the appeal as a continuation of the suit, is a lacuna warranting admission of the second appeal for further consideration.medium confidence¶124
The court held
Being the First Appellate Court, it was its bounden duty to raise necessary points and reappreciate the plaintiffs' case both on law and facts.ratio¶154

Smt Boramma v. Sri Amase Madaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Boramma v. Sri Amase Madaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt B T Varalakshmi Vs Kumaraswamy

Environmental Research Institute and Human Care Society Vs the Estate of Officer

Y M Hanumegowda Vs Smt. Doddalingamma

Smt. Tulasi Vs Smt. Kempamma

Smt.Nagamma Vs Smt.Shanthamma

Sri Ramachandrappa Vs Sri S Thippanna