Dismissed¶129

Durgappa S/O. Sunkavva Harijan @ Madar v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2025RSA/5049/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: regular second appeal; Section 100 CPC; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench; RSA No.5049 of 2012; declaration of title; permanent injunction; suit property old No.40/new No.257 measuring 28 ft x 60 ft; Nuzul No.169 (220 sq yards); Hyderabad/Nizam grant 1938 (1347 Fasli); revenue mutation entries Ex.P2 to P9; genealogy Ex.P16; Ex.D5 record-of-events/no objection for mutation; failure to prove link between two properties; concurrent findings; perversity; substantial question of law; Jayamma Venkatram (ILR 2021 KAR 3559); Bhimeshwara Swami Vary Temple (AIR 1973 SC 1299); appeal dismissed, trial decree confirmed; M.G.S. Kamal J; Koppal courts.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court stand confirmed. ¶129

Durgappa S/O. Sunkavva Harijan @ Madar Vs the Secretary — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court stand confirmed.

¶129

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, given the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court against the plaintiff on title and possession. +2 more

¶128

Court's answer

No substantial question of law arises for consideration; the precedents urged by the appellant's counsel (Jayamma and Sri Bhimeshwara) involve different facts and are distinguishable, so reliance on them is of no avail.

¶128

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff failed to establish the link between the suit schedule property and Nuzul No.169; consequently, as noted by both courts below, the plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit.

¶118

Key takeaways

Even according to the plaintiff's own pleadings there are two different properties (suit property old No.40/new No.257 per plaint para 2, and Nuzul No.169 per plaint para 5), undermining the attempt to equate them via Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 to P9.ratio¶113
The plaintiff's reliance on Ex.P2 (renumbering of Nuzul No.169 as property No.257) runs contrary to his own pleadings and cannot be countenanced; the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly concluded that the plaintiff had not established his right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.ratio¶123

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC by the heirs of Durgappa (original plaintiff, deceased) against the confirmation, in RA No.38/2011 (Senior Civil Judge, Koppal, judgment dated 30.11.2011), of the dismissal of his suit O.S.No.188/2008 (Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, decree dated 04.08.2011) seeking declaration of ownership and possession and permanent injunction over property old No.40/new No.257 measuring 28 ft x 60 ft at Ginigera, claimed as ancestral via a 1938 (1347 Fasli) Government of Hyderabad/Nizam grant. Plaintiff relied on revenue entries: Ex.P2 (Nuzul No.169 in the name of Durga S/o. Kalakappa Madara) and Ex.P3 to P9 (plaintiff's name for old No.40/new No.257); private defendants (R3-R7) claimed Nuzul No.169 for their forefathers. HELD (M.G.S. Kamal J, oral judgment, 03.06.2025): the plaint itself disclosed two different properties; the plaintiff led no cogent evidence proving the link between them, so reliance on Ex.P2 to treat Nuzul No.169 as renumbered No.257 cannot be countenanced; the precedents cited by counsel (Jayamma, ILR 2021 KAR 3559; Sri Bhimeshwara Swami Vary Temple, AIR 1973 SC 1299) turn on different facts and are distinguishable; no substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings below. Appeal dismissed; Trial Court's judgment and decree confirmed. (Appeal against Respondent 2 abated, v/o 28.10.2024.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5049 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DURGAPPA

¶10

S/O. SUNKAVVA HARIJAN @ MADAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶11

1A. SMT. HANAMAVVA W/O. DURGAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.257, NEAR DURGAMA TEMPLE, GINIGERA, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

1B. GALEPPA

¶13

S/O. DURGAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.257, NEAR DURGAMA TEMPLE, GINIGERA, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶14

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶15

1C. YAMANURAPPA S/O. DURGAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.257, NEAR DURGAMA TEMPLE, GINIGERA, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL. 1D. BALAPPA S/O. DURGAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.257, NEAR DURGAMA TEMPLE, GINIGERA, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶16

1E. SHIVAMURTHY S/O. DURGAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.257, NEAR DURGAMA TEMPLE, GINIGERA, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GINIGERA, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶24

HIREDURGAPPA S/O. SIDLAPPA SIDLAPPANAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GINIGERA, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶25

MARIYAVVA W/O. GUDADAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GINIGERA, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶26

GUNJAPPA S/O. GUDADAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O: GINIGERA, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶27

MARIYAPPA S/O. SANNADURGAPPA SHIDLAPPANAVAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O: GINIGERA, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶28

SANNADURGAPPA S/O. SHIDLAPPA SHIDLAPPANAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O: GINIGERA, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶29

HANUMANTAPPA S/O. SANNADURGAPPA SHIDLAPPANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O: GINIGERA, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED; V/O DATED: 28.10.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)

¶32

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.38/2011 DATED 30.11.2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOPPAL AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.188/2008 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT KOPPAL AND ALLOW THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.188/2008, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

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

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

¶39

Appellant-plaintiff is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2011 passed in OS No.188/2008 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal (for short ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of ownership and possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed which is confirmed by the judgement and order dated 30.11.2011 passed in RA No.38/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Koppal (for short ‘First Appellate Court’).

¶40

Case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing old No.40 and new No.257 measuring 28 ft. x 60 ft., within the boundaries described at paragraph No.2 of the plaint. That the said property is the ancestral property which has been in possession and enjoyment of his

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ancestors and now with the plaintiff. At paragraph No.5 of the plaint it is averred that the then Government of Hyderabad had granted another property bearing Nuzul No.169 in favour of the family of the plaintiff in the year 1938 A.D., corresponding to 1345 Fasli. The name of the ancestors of the plaintiff was accordingly entered in the revenue records. Subsequently, name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records from the year 1967-

¶44

68 by virtue of inheritance. The said property stands in the name of Durga S/o. Kalakappa. That, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 having no share, right, title or interest over the

¶45

property, were attempting to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, which constrained the plaintiff to file the above suit seeking reliefs as noted above.

¶46

3. Defendants appeared through their counsel.

¶47

Defendant No.4 filed written statement which has been adopted by defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. Defendants have

¶48

denied the claim of the plaintiff being owner in lawful

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the schedule property was granted by the then Government of Hyderabad in favour of the ancestors of plaintiff or that the property in No.169 was granted to the family of the plaintiff. It is specifically contended that, the property comprised in Nuzul No.169 situated at Ginigera totally measuring 220 square yards within the boundaries shown at paragraph No.7 of the written statement, belongs to them and the plaintiff has no right, share, title in the same. The name of Durga @ Durgappa shown in the Nuzul Extract pertaining to property No.169 is the grandfather of the defendants. Upon his demise, defendants and their legal representatives have been in possession of property. Contending so, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶52

4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

¶53

“1. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ªÀiÁ°Ì ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¢ü¤vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀvÉUÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶58

zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÃ½gÀÄªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀUÀ½UÉ ªÁ¢ CºÀðvÉ?

¶59

AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉÃ±À?”

¶60

Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and two other

¶61

witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and exhibited 18 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P18. On behalf of defendants, three witnesses were examined namely Mariyappa as DW1, Fakeerswamy as DW2 and Guruswamy as DW3 and exhibited 05 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D5.

¶62

On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred regular appeal in RA No.38/2011. The First Appellate Court on considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal framed the following points for its considering:

¶63

“1. Whether the trial court is correct in appreciation of oral and documentary evidence?

¶64

2. Whether the judgment of the trial court is perverse, capricious and needs interference of this Court?

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

3. What order?”

¶68

On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First

¶69

Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶70

Sri. Arun L. Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and taking this Court through the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the exhibits produced by the parties vehemently submitted that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred in rejecting the suit of the plaintiff on the premise of the plaintiff not being able to produce the document of title which is contrary to settle position of law. In that, he insists that long standing revenue entries

¶71

can be the basis for granting the relief of declaration of title. He submits as such, Ex.P2 is the revenue entry

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

standing in the name of Durga S/o. Kalakappa Madara is the oldest document reflecting his name in respect of property bearing Nuzul No.169. Referring to document at Ex.P.16 which is a genealogy, he submits that the same reflects the name of said Durga S/o. Kalakappa Madara who is the ancestor of the plaintiff. He further referring to Ex.P3 to P9 submits that, the said revenue entries consistently indicate the name of the plaintiff. Thus he submits that, since the name of the ancestor of the plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff himself is being reflected consistently, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have decreed the suit as sought for.

¶75

8.1. It is his further submission that, though the private defendants have set-up a claim over the suit property they have not produced any acceptable evidence to substantiate their claim and in the circumstances preponderance of probabilities ought to have been held in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, non-appreciation of material

¶76

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

evidence and wrong application of provision of law by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has led to perversity in the judgement and decree passed giving raise to substantial question of law.

¶80

8.2. He relies upon the judgment of Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayamma

¶81

Venkatram and Another Vs. Smt. Ashraf Jahan Begum and Another¹ and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sri. Bhimeshwara Swami Vary Temple Vs. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and Others² .

¶82

Per contra, Smt. Nandini B. Somapur, learned counsel appearing for private defendants justifying the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court submits that, the plaintiff who has sought for relief of declaration of his title ought to have adduced cogent evidence instead of depending upon the weakness of the defendants. She

¶83

1 ILR 2021 KAR 3559

¶84

2 AIR 1973 SC 1299

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

further submits that, the dispute arose when the defendants had made an application for mutation of their names in respect of property bearing Nuzul No.169.

¶89

9.1. Referring to the document at Ex.D5, the learned counsel pointed out that, the said document is the record of events that transpired upon the application filed by the defendants. In that, the plaintiff had indicated no objection to register the name of the defendants in respect of land bearing Nuzul No.169 measuring 220 square yards subject to condition of they being permitted to utilise the portion of the said property for the ingress or egress. She submits that, the said document has neither been contested nor denied by the plaintiff. As such, the suit so filed by the plaintiff is an after thought only to grab the property belonging to the defendants.

¶90

9.2. She further submits that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had not established his right, title, interest and possession over the

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

possession of the property. Since, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have given concurrent finding of facts, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶95

Heard and perused the records.

¶96

At the outset relevant to note the paragraph

¶97

Nos.2 and 5 of the plaint which are as under:

¶98

“ 2. zÁªÁ D¹Û ªÀtð£ÉAiÀÄÄ:- VuÉÃUÁgÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ RÄ¯Áè eÁUÉAiÀÄÄ EzÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀAiÀiÁvÀ D¹Û £ÀA. ºÀ¼ÉÃzÀ 40, ºÉÆ¸ÀzÀÄ 257, EzÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð 28 X 60 ¥sÀÆl, EzÀgÀ ZÉPÀÌ§A¢:-

¶99

¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ - gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ - D¹Û £ÀA.239 CxÀªÁ 258 GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ - UÀAªÁgÁt eÁUÉ zÀQëtPÉÌ - gÀ¸ÉÛ

¶100

F ZÉPÀÌ§A¢ ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß E£ÀÆß ªÀÄÄAzÉ zÁªÁ D¹Û JAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶101

¸À¢æ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄvÀÛdÓ£À PÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ PÀ©Ó ªÀ»ªÁlÄ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛªÁV ¸À¢æ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DV£À E°è£À ¥ÁæzÉÃ²PÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÁzÀ ºÉÊzÁæ¨ÁzÀ ¤eÁªÀÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ 1347 ¥sÀ¸À°£À ¸À£ï CAzÀgÉÃ 1938gÀ°è dªÁ§ ¸À¥sÁÛ§ ¸Á¯ÁgÀdAUÀ §ºÀzÀÆÝgÀ zÁªÀiÁAiÀÄPÀ¨Á®ªÀÅ EªÀgÀÄ £ÀA.171 PÀÄ®ègÀPÀ¨ÁÓ-ªÀÄÄgÀ¨ÁÝUÀeÁ 183 £ÀÄß AiÀÄ¯Áè ªÀ: ¨sÀgÀªÀiÁ ªÀiÁzÀgÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄvÀÛdÓ¤UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÁgÀ¸Á £ÁvÉ¬ÄAzÀ 1967-68 E¹éAiÀÄ°è ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉÆAzÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ EzÉÃ ªÉÃ¼ÉUÉ ¸À¢æ ¤eÁªÀÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ RÄ¯Áè eÁUÉ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À»vÀ

¶102

12 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄvÀÛdÓ£À vÀAzÉUÉ PÉÆqÀªÀiÁqÀ®ànÖzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉå:169 JAzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸À¢æ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄ£É ªÀ RÄ¯Áè eÁUÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ FUÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F jÃw PÉÆqÀªÀiÁ®àlÖ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÀåPÀë ªÀiÁ°Ì ºÉÆA¢ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ G¥À¨sÉÆÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß FUÀ®Æ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶106

5J. zÀÄgÀUÀ vÀA¢ PÀ¼ÀPÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁgÀÄªÀÄ¤ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ £ÀÄdÄ® £ÀA.169gÀ ¤gÀÄ¥Á¢üPÀ ªÀiÁ°PÀvÀé ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÁAwAiÀÄÄvÀ ªÀiÁ°PÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀÄdÄ®Ä 169gÀ ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛªÉ.”

¶107

Thus, perusal of pleadings in the aforesaid

¶108

paragraphs would indicate that, the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule property as described at paragraph No.2 of the plaint, namely, property bearing old No.40 new No.257 measuring 28 ft. x 60 ft., bounded on the east by : road, west by : property bearing No.239 or 258, north by : Gawathana property and south by : road. Though at para No.5 of the plaint, plaintiff has claimed that the suit schedule property was granted by the then Nizam Hyderabad to the forefathers of the plaintiff in the year 1938, in the same paragraph the plaintiff has claimed that at the same time the Nizam had granted another property being open space bearing Nuzul No.169 and that the said

¶109

13 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

property consist of a house and open space standing in the name of the plaintiff.

¶113

Clearly even according to the plaintiff, there are two different properties. However, as rightly taken note by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court during trial, the plaintiff made an attempt to establish the link between two properties referring to the entries made in Ex.P2 and the entries made in Ex.P3 to P9. Ex.P2 refers to the property bearing Nuzul extract No.169, standing in the name of one Durga S/o. Kalakappa Madara. Whereas, Ex.P3 to P9 reflect the name of the plaintiff in respect of property old No.40 new No.257.

¶114

It is the case of the plaintiff as stated above that, both the properties were granted by the then Government of Hyderabad in the year 1938. If the suit property as described at para No.2 of the plaint according to the plaintiff is different from the property referred to at para No.5, there is no need for the plaintiff to contend that both the properties are one and the same. Having

¶115

14 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

contended so, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have established the link between these two properties by leading cogent and acceptable evidence. This not having been proved by the plaintiff, as rightly taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court the plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit.

¶119

Necessary also to note that, the defendants are not making any claim in respect of suit property namely the property described at para No.2 of the plaint as extracted herein above. Defendants on the other hand are contending that, the property bearing Nuzul No.169 which is referred to at para No.5 of the plaint, belonged to their forefathers, the description of which is given by the defendants at para No.7 of the written statement. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff under the guise of seeking relief in respect of suit property bearing old No.40 and new No.257, is trying to claim the property bearing Nuzul No.169 which is in possession of the defendants.

¶120

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

Though as noted above, the plaintiff sought

¶123

declaration in respect of property described in para No.2 of the plaint, later seem to have changed his version to contend that both the properties described at para No.2 and 5 of the plaint are one and the same. This runs contrary to the very own pleading of the plaintiff as extracted herein above. The reliance placed by the plaintiff on Ex.P.2 which pertains to property bearing Nuzul No.169 to contend that the said property is renumbered as property No.257 as reflected in document at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.9, in the light of the very pleading in the plaint cannot be countenanced. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having taken note of this aspect of the matter have rightly come to the conclusion of the plaintiff not establishing his right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.

¶124

Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff on the judgments in the case of Jayamma (supra) and Sri. Bhimeshwara (supra)

¶125

16 -

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7279 RSA No. 5049 of 2012

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

are of no avail inasmuch as, the facts involved in both the cases are different and distinguishable. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration.

¶129

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed confirming

¶130

the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶131

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶132

SMM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Durgappa S/O. Sunkavva Harijan @ Madar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgappa S/O. Sunkavva Harijan @ Madar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaktinivas Builders Private Limited Vs Shri.Ramchandra S/O Hanamant Kamu

Ningappa S/O Basappa Barki Vs Yashavantappa S/O Melappa Tuvar

Smt Bharathi K Vs M/S Canara Bank

Wahida Begum Vs Dilip

Rajan S/O Purushottam Mapsekar Vs Gurunath S/O Mahadev Pawaskar

Registrar of Companies Bangalore Vs M/S South India Cements Ltd.