Dismissed¶78

Smt. Sarojamma v. B. G. Benakappa

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025RSA/424/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court RSA No.424/2017 (decided 03-09-2025, Justice E.S. Indiresh): second appeal dismissed for want of substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; declaratory relief refused as Grant Order/Certificate bore no boundaries, grantee-P.W.4 doubted identity of land, grant of 04 acres in Sy.No.100 versus claim over Sy.No.100/P6; revenue records not a substitute for title document; concurrent findings free from perversity; respondents served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

No boundaries were mentioned in the Grant Order nor in the subsequent documents issued by the competent authority; P.W.4 (Sri. Haleshappa, the original grantee) himself admitted the non-mentioning of boundaries in the Grant Order and expressed doubts about the identity of the land in question. ¶67

Smt. Sarojamma Vs B. G. Benakappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff established title to, and the identity/description of, the suit schedule property (Sy.No.100/P6, 04 acres, Kanchugaranahalli Village) so as to be entitled to a declaration of ownership with consequential permanent injunction. +2 more

¶72

Court's answer

¶67

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any document showing the boundaries of the 04 acres claimed and of admissible evidence that the vendor Sri. Haleshappa was granted Sy.No.100/P6 by the competent authority, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit; the land claimed being unidentifiable, both Courts below rightly concluded that the plaintiff has not made out a case for grant of declaratory relief.

¶72

Key takeaways

Any amount of revenue records placed by the plaintiff would not suffice for grant of declaratory relief in the absence of a title document to the plaintiff.ratio¶72
There is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.ratio¶72
The appellant has not made out a case for framing a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure; consequently the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC by the plaintiff against concurrent findings dismissing her suit (O.S.No.2/2011, old O.S.No.252/2007) for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction over 04 acres in Sy.No.100/P6, Kanchugaranahalli Village, Channagiri Taluk, claimed under a registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.2004 from the original grantee Sri. Haleshappa, whose State Grant Order was dated 19.01.1963. Held: no boundaries were mentioned in the Grant Order or subsequent documents; P.W.4 (Haleshappa, original grantee) admitted the omission and expressed doubts about the identity of the land; the grant was of 04 acres in Sy.No.100 whereas the claim was laid over Sy.No.100/P6. The land claimed being unidentifiable and with no admissible evidence of the vendor's grant of Sy.No.100/P6, revenue records cannot substitute for a title document in a claim for declaratory relief; the concurrent findings carry no perversity; no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC. The Regular Second Appeal and I.A.No.1/2017 were dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 424 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O. LATE LAXMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE-577 217.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

B. G. BENAKAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. LATE BENAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶16

BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE BENAKAPPA,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶18

SURESH S/O. LATE BENAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶19

GIRISH S/O. LATE BENAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ALL ARE R/O. BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE- 577 217.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS REGULAR SECOND APEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S. NO.2/2011 (OLD NO.252/2007) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNAGIRI.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the

¶31

judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 in R.A.No.44/2012

¶32

on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter termed as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2012 in O.S.No.2/2011 (old No.252/2007) on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(hereinafter termed as 'Trial Court'), dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶36

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶37

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶38

It is the case of the plaintiff that, the land bearing Sy.No.100/P6 measuring to an extent of 04 acres of Kanchugaranahalli Village, Channagiri Taluk was granted in favour of one Sri. Haleshappa by the State Government

¶39

as per the order of Grant dated 19.01.1963. The Grant Certificate was accordingly issued. It is also stated that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from the original Grantee - Sri. Haleshappa on 27.01.2004. Thereafter, the revenue records stood in the name of the plaintiff.

¶40

It is the case of plaintiff that, the defendant without any semblance of right or interest over the suit schedule property, has interfered with the suit schedule property based on the Will dated 31.01.1986 stated to

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

have been executed by one Sri. Nagappa in favour of the defendant. It is also stated that, the defendant had filed O.S.No.207/2004 against the plaintiff before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Channagiri, seeking relief of permanent injunction and the said suit came to be decreed by the competent Civil Court. Hence, the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.252/2007 before the competent Civil Court seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. The said suit was transferred to III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Davanagere as per the notification dated 08.07.2009 and renumbered as O.S.No.2/2011, having transferred to the newly established Court at Senior Civil Judge Court at Channagiri.

¶44

After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that, the defendant is the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.100/12 (New Sy.No.218) of Kanchugaranahalli

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Village, Channagiri Taluk to an extent of 05 acres. It is also stated that, the defendant has filed O.S.No.207/2004 against the plaintiff as well as the vendor of the plaintiff - Sri. Haleshappa and the said suit came to be decreed and therefore, it is stated that, the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

¶48

It is also stated in the written statement disputing the boundaries reflected in the schedule to the plaint and therefore, it is the case of the defendant that, the schedule property claimed by the plaintiff is un-identifiable and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶49

The Trial Court based on pleadings on record has formulated the issues for its consideration.

¶50

In order to establish her case, the plaintiff has examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked eleven documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The Defendant has examined two witnesses

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked nineteen documents

¶55

and same were marked as Exs.D1 to D19.

¶56

The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 09.03.2012 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.44/2012 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2/2011. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶57

Heard Sri. R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶58

Sri. R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of this Court to the finding recorded by both the Courts below and referred to Ex.P1 -

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Grant Certificate issued by the State Government in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff - Sri. Haleshappa. It is also argued that, though the boundaries have not been specified in the Grant Certificate however, the revenue sketch at Ex.P2 would indicate the boundaries of the suit schedule property and in this regard, he contended that, the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is the adjacent owner towards the other side of the suit schedule property and therefore he sought for interference of this Court.

¶63

It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant by referring to Ex.P10 - Order dated 14.08.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner wherein the resurvey has been ordered by the revenue authorities and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶64

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. The plaintiff is claiming relief of declaration in terms

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

of the registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.2004 wherein, the vendor of the plaintiff - Sri. Haleshappa, claims to be the Grantee of the land as per the Grant Order dated 19.01.1963. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that, there is no boundaries mentioned in the Grant Order nor in the subsequent documents issued by the competent authority. It is also to be noted that, the plaintiff has examined P.W.4 - Sri. Haleshappa (original Grantee) wherein, the said P.W.4 himself admits about the non-mentioning of the boundaries in the Grant Order and expressed doubts about identity of the land in question.

¶68

In that view of the matter, as there is no document to show that the boundaries of 04 acres of land claimed by the plaintiff and in the absence of admissible evidence to show that, his vendor - Sri. Haleshappa was granted land bearing Sy.No.100/P6 by the competent authority and as such, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is also to be noted that, P.W.4

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

himself has categorically admitted that the land to an extent of 04 acres was granted in Sy.No.100, however, the claim is made by the plaintiff in land bearing Sy.No.100/P6. In that view of the matter, since the land claimed by the plaintiff is not identifiable and the suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking title over the suit schedule property and in the absence of description of the land in question as claimed by the plaintiff based on the Grant Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff, I am of the view that, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out a case for grating relief of declaration. In that view of the matter, any amount of revenue records placed by the plaintiff would not suffice for grant of declaratory relief in the absence of title document to the plaintiff. I am of the view that, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.

¶73