Dismissed¶38

The Arya Samaja Hallikhed-B v. Marutirao S/O Mallappa Arya

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2025RSA/7267/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 7267 of 2013, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, decided 15.04.2025 by Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. Keywords: declaration of title; injunction; open space; oral evidence insufficient to prove title; no title deed produced; hand sketch; Khata Extract; Panchayath building permission; concurrent findings; no substantial question of law; Section 100 CPC; second appeal dismissed; O.S.No.86/1997; R.A.No. Old No.02/2004 / New No.27/2011; Humnabad; Bidar; Arya Samaja Hallikhed-B v. Marutirao Arya (through LRs).

What did the court decide?

No document was produced to establish title over the open space adjacent to the building; the plaintiff's claim to the open space rested on oral evidence alone, without any title deed or other title document. ¶35

The Arya Samaja Hallikhed-B Vs Marutirao S/O Mallappa Arya — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff established title over the open space measuring 40 feet East–West and 47.02 feet North–South in front of Village Panchayath Nos.12-45/1, 12-45/2, 1245/4, 12-45/5 and 12/45/6, so as to be entitled to a decree for declaration of title and injunction. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

¶35

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no error in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that oral evidence is insufficient to establish title over the open space, and holds that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings dismissing a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff sought declaration of title over an open space measuring 40 feet East–West and 47.02 feet North–South in front of Village Panchayath Nos.12-45/1, 12-45/2, 1245/4, 12-45/5 and 12/45/6. The plaintiff produced only a hand sketch, Khata Extract and Panchayath building permission relating to the building, and no title document for the open space; title over the open space was sought to be established through oral evidence alone. Both the Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Humnabad, judgment and decree dated 19.12.2003 in O.S.No.86/1997) and the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad, R.A.No. Old No.02/2004, New No.27/2011, dated 28.05.2013) concurrently held that oral evidence is not sufficient to establish title over open space so as to grant a decree for declaration of title. The High Court (Kalaburagi Bench, Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.) found no error in the concurrent findings, held that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2306 RSA No. 7267 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7267 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE ARYA SAMAJA HALLIKHED-B THROUGH ITS PRESENT SECRETARY SRI SHIVAJIRAO S/O RAMCHANDRARAO POSHANGIR, AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: VILLAGE HALLIKHED-B, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

MARUTIRAO S/O MALLAPPA ARYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN B.S.S.K. LTD. HALLIKHED-B, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. DIED HIS LRS.

¶15

1A. NAGAMMA W/O MARUTIRAO ARYA AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL HALLIKGED-B, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR.

¶16

1B. MALLAMMA W/O RAJENDRA KALBURGI

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2306 RSA No. 7267 of 2013

¶18

AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BASAWESHWAR MANDIR ROAD, BIJAPUR.

¶19

1C. VIJAYALAXMI W/O UMESH ARYA AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O: ANNAPURNA HOTEL (KHANAWALLI) KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, OPPOSITE TO INDIAN OIL DEPO NANDUR KALABURAGI.

¶20

1D. DHANLAXMI W/O MALLIKARJUN ARYA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN PVT. SCHOOL, R/O: REVANSIDDESHWAR PRIMARY SCHOOL, HALLIKGED-B, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR.

¶21

1E. SMT. BHAGYA LAXMI W/O DEVIDAS AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O: ANADUR, TQ: & DIST: BIDAR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KUMMAN, ADV., FOR R1(A) TO R1(E))

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL INTERFERE WITH THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2003 IN O.S.NO.86/1997 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), HUMNABAD, WHEREIN THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS DISMISSED AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUMNABAD IN R.A.NO OLD. NO.02/2004, NEW NO.27/2011 DATED 28.05.2013 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ETC.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2306 RSA No. 7267 of 2013

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶30

This appeal is arising from a concurrent finding in a suit for declaration and injunction.

¶31

The plaintiff has sought declaration of title in respect of open space measuring 40 feet towards East – West and 47.02 ft towards North – South, in front of the property bearing Village Panchayath (V.P) Nos.12-45/1, 12-45/2, 1245/4, 12-45/5 and 12/45/6.

¶32

Admittedly, the property for which a declaration of title is sought is an open space. The defendant disputed the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was required to establish title over the property by producing either of the title deeds or any other documents, which would establish title over the property.

¶33

The plaintiff to substantiate his claim has produced the hand sketch and Khata Extract in respect of building and permission granted by the Panchayath to construct the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2306 RSA No. 7267 of 2013

¶35

building. However, no document is produced to establish the title over the open space adjacent to the building. The title over the said open space is sought to be established by adducing oral evidence. Both the Courts have concurrently held that oral evidence to establish the title in respect of open space is not sufficient to grant a decree for declaration of title.

¶36

This Court does not find any error in the concurrent

¶37

findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and no substantial question of law arises in the appeal.

¶38

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶40

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

The Arya Samaja Hallikhed-B v. Marutirao S/O Mallappa Arya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Arya Samaja Hallikhed-B v. Marutirao S/O Mallappa Arya

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

Maremma W/O Malkappa Vs Devaputrappa S/O Chikanna

Smt. Aubiya Bee D/O Osmansab Masuldar and Anr. Vs Pasha Miyan S/O Mastan Sab Masuldar Died by Lr and Ors.

Kalyanrao S/O Late Mahadhavrao Gurnale and Anr. Vs Chandrakanth S/O Veerappa Biradar Gobbur

Rayamma W/O Tippanna Vs Bakkamma W/O Maruti and Ors.

Chander S/O Bajirao Biradar Since Deceased Vs Srimanth and Ors.

Deepa @ Lakshmi and Anr. Vs Pratapsingh