Mahadevu Vs M S Siddegowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mahadevu Vs M S Siddegowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether, after the demise of the parties' father, a further partition took place between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 under which item Nos.2 to 5 fell to the plaintiff's share, entitling him to declaration of title over those properties. +1 more

Court's answer

There was no partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 after the demise of their father, as alleged by the plaintiff: apart from oral evidence the plaintiff produced no other record of such partition, and based on the alleged oral partition the names of the respective parties were not entered in the revenue records.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of title deeds, the plaintiff cannot seek a declaration of title.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit regarding item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties.ratio¶16
The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.ratio¶16
The Court finds no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the courts below and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this regular second appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC by the plaintiff (Mahadevu) against the concurrent findings confirming dismissal of his claim for declaration and permanent injunction over item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties (brother's family, Mandya district). HELD: (i) while the written partition of 05.04.1975 effected during the father's lifetime — allotting item Nos.2 to 5 to him for his life estate — stood undisputed, the alleged subsequent partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 after the father's demise was not established, resting on bare oral evidence with no corresponding entries in the revenue records; (ii) a declaration of title cannot be sought without production of title deeds; (iii) the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit as to item Nos.2 to 5 and the First Appellate Court rightly confirmed its judgment and decree; and (iv) no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees in O.S.No.9/2010 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, 09.10.2013) and R.A.No.5017/2014 (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, 18.10.2021) confirmed; no order as to costs.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

MAHADEVU S/O LATE GENDEKALEGOWDANA SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 434

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M S SIDDEGOWDA

S/O GENDEKALEGOWDANA SIDDEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1(A) JAYAMMA

W/O LATE M S SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

R/AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 434

1(B) SUJATHA W/O CHANNEGOWDA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

D/O M S SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT TONNURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 434

1(C) YASHODHA W/O RAJEGOWDA D/O M S SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

SIDDARAJU S/O M S SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

MANJULA D/O M S SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 TEARS

RESPONDENT Nos. 1(C), 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 434

SHRUTHI D/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

PREETHI D/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

RESPONDENT Nos.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 434

…RESPONDENTS

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO. 5017/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO. 9/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2021 passed in R.A.No.5017/2014 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapattana and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 09.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.9/2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura.

For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 is the brother of the plaintiff. It is contended that, there was a partition during the lifetime of the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 in 1975, and the said partition was reduced into writing on 05.04.1975. From the date of partition, plaintiff and defendants are in possession of their respective shares.

It is contended that items No.2 to 5 of the properties were fallen to the share of the plaintiff’s father’s life estate. After the demise of the plaintiff’s father, the suit schedule properties were divided between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. In the said partition items No.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

the suit schedule properties. It is contended that, the defendants have no right whatsoever over the suit schedule properties which they are trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession.

5. Defendants No.4 and 5 are the minors and their

mother, on their behalf filed a suit in O.S.No.139/1998 against defendants No.1 to 3 for partition and separate possession. The defendants with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, by colluding with each other, filed the aforesaid suit. The judgment passed in O.S.No.139/1998 is not binding on the plaintiff. The said fact comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff when the defendants initiated the final decree of proceedings.

Further, the plaintiff filed an application for impleading him in FDP No.29/2009. The said application was rejected by the FDP Court. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

Defendant No.1 filed a written statement

denying the averments made in the plaint and it is admitted that there was partition in 1975 and suit items No.2 to 5 were allotted to the share of their father for life

estate and after his demise, the properties in item No.2 to 5 divided equally between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties and it is contended that item No.5 of the suit schedule properties still stands in the name of his father. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1.

Defendants No.4 and 5 filed a written statement

denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that in view of the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.139/1998, katha was not mutated in the name of

the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is contended that the decree passed in O.S.No.139/1998 was executed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.8/2010. It is contended that

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

the plaintiff filed an application for impleading in the FDP proceedings. The said application was rejected by the FDP Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendants No.4 and 5.

The Trial Court, based on the aforesaid

pleadings, framed the relevant issues.

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, and marked 14 documents as exhibits P1 to P14. In rebuttal, defendants No.1 to 3 have not led any

oral evidence. Defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1, and marked 5 documents as exhibits D.1 to D.5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part, insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule property, and dismissed the suit insofar as item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties.

The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit regarding item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

properties, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.5017/2014 on the file of III Addl. Dist. And Sessions Judge, Mandya. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 18.10.2021. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, there was a partition during the lifetime of the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 in 1975. In the said partition, items No.2 to 5 were allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s father for the life estate, for his maintenance, till his life. After his demise, the properties have to be equally divided between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. He submits that, after the demise of plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 divided item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties and in the said partition, items No.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties have fallen to the

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

share of the plaintiff and thus, plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. He submits that the courts below have not properly considered the material on record, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He submits that impugned judgments are arbitrary and erroneous, and the same are liable to be set aside. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

It is not in dispute that there was a partition

during the lifetime of the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 in 1975. The partition was reduced into writing on 05.04.1975. In the said partition, item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s father for his life estate. After the demise of plaintiff’s father, item Nos.2 to 5 have to be equally divided between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. There is no dispute regarding the partition effected on 05.04.1975.

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

The plaintiff contends that after the demise of his father, there was a partition between plaintiff and defendant No.1. To establish that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the plaintiff, except the oral evidence, has not produced any other records and further, based on the alleged oral partition, the name of the respective parties, were not entered into revenue records. The said fact, indicates that, there was no partition, as alleged by the plaintiff, between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Further, the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration of the title without producing any title deeds. In the absence of title deeds, the plaintiff cannot seek a declaration of title.

The Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit regarding item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9502 RSA No. 334 of 2022

judgments or any substantial question of law, that arises for consideration.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

order:

ORDER

i) The Appeal is dismissed; ii) The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, are hereby confirmed.

iii) No order as to costs.

SD/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

BVK, rs