Sri K Srirangacharya v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2026RFA/542/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Sachin Shankar Magadum J, oral judgment dated 29-01-2026) in RFA No. 542 of 2025 (DEC/INJ): appeal by plaintiff No.2 K. Srirangacharya against dismissal of his declaration-and-injunction suit (O.S. No.637/2013, Nelamangala) over Survey Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 10 of Gavipalya Village claimed as temple (Archaka) lands; held plaint disclosed no title, Archaka status confers no ownership of inam lands, schedule vague against village map Ex.P5, and Land Tribunal occupancy rights dated 23.04.1987 (Ex.D1) in favour of defendant No.5's ancestor stand unchallenged and final; appeal dismissed with Rs.25,000/- costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by plaintiff No.2 (appellant) to defendant No.5. ¶138-139

Sri K Srirangacharya Vs Government of Karnataka — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by plaintiff No.2 (appellant) to defendant No.5.

¶138-139

Issue for consideration

Point (i): Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property is perverse or calls for interference? +2 more

¶60-61

Court's answer

Though styled a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, the plaint conspicuously fails to disclose or even refer to any foundational title documents; it is wholly silent as to the source of title, mode of acquisition, or manner in which ownership is claimed, and in a suit for declaration of title the burden squarely lies on the plaintiffs to plead and prove the origin and continuity of title.

¶78

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiffs' entire claim of title rests solely on the assertion that they are Archakas attached to the said deity, which by itself does not confer ownership rights over the inam lands; there is no pleading of the origin of title, the nature of the grant, or the manner in which ownership is claimed.

¶113

Key takeaways

The suit schedule, which clubs Survey Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 10 (13 acres 04 guntas including 17 guntas karab) under common boundaries, is vague and inherently defective; the common boundaries do not tally with the village map (Exhibit P5), striking at the very identity of the suit property, and proper identification of immovable property being a sine qua non in a suit for declaration of title, ambiguity or incorrect description renders the relief unenforceable.ratio¶108
The boundaries indicated in the schedule are imaginary, fictitious, and incapable of identifying the suit property with certainty; on this ground alone the discretionary relief of declaration cannot be granted.ratio¶129

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Sec. 96 CPC by the unsuccessful plaintiff No.2 against the judgment and decree dated 4.01.2025 in O.S. No.637/2013 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala) dismissing a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over 13 acres 04 guntas (including 17 guntas karab) in Survey Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 10 of Gavipalya Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, claimed by the plaintiffs as Archakas of Lakshmi Narayanaswami Temple and as lands attached to the deity. Held, dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs.25,000/-: (i) the plaint disclosed no foundational title documents and was silent as to the source of title, mode of acquisition or nature of grant; bare Archaka status confers no ownership over inam lands, and the plaintiffs never applied to the Land Tribunal under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955; (ii) the suit schedule clubbing four survey numbers under common boundaries was vague and did not tally with the village map (Exhibit P5), defeating identification of the property, such identification being a sine qua non for a declaration; (iii) defendant No.5, through Exhibit D1, established that occupancy rights in the suit lands were conferred on his ancestor by Land Tribunal order dated 23.04.1987, which the plaintiffs never challenged and which has attained finality. Trial Court findings not perverse; Point No.(i) answered in the Negative and Point No.(ii) in the Affirmative.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. SRIRANGACHARYA

¶9

S/O LATE KAMBADA NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.37 BANDEHOSUR, KANUR POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-562149.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. NITIN .A.M, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE SECRETARY MUZARI AND ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

SRI. C.M. BASKAR S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. C.M. GOWDA S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶22

SRI. C.M. BALAJI S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶23

R4 AND R5 ARE RESIDING AT LAKSHIMPURA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI

¶24

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 162.

¶25

SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI S/O KAMBADA NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.37, BANDEHOSUR, KANUR POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU -562149.

¶26

SRI. K. BASKAR S/O KAMBADA NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶27

SRI. K. PURUSHOTHAM S/O KAMBADA NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶28

SRI. K. SRIDHAR MURTHY S/O KAMBADA NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶29

SRI. K. NARASIMHAIAH MURTHY S/O KAMBADA NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶30

R8 TO R11 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 37, BANDEHOSUR KANUR POST

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-562 149.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. ABHINAY .Y.T, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶37

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.01.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.637/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT NELAMANGALA., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶38

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 'PART HEARD IN ADMISSION', THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff No.2

¶42

assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No.637/2013, wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction is dismissed.

¶43

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶44

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶45

Facts leading to the case are as follows:

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The plaintiffs, claiming to be the Archakas of Lakshmi Narayanaswami Temple situated at Kammasandra, have instituted the present suit seeking declaration of title and consequential injunctive reliefs, asserting that they are the absolute owners of the lands stated to be attached to the said deity.

¶49

Defendant No.5, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, categorically denying all averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.5 specifically contended that the suit schedule lands are admittedly inam lands and that his ancestor was a cultivating tenant thereof. It is further pleaded that consequent upon the abolition of inams under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), the grandfather of Defendant No.5 submitted Form No.7 before the competent Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal, by order dated 23.04.1987, conferred occupancy rights in respect of the suit lands in favour of the ancestor of Defendant No.5. Defendant No.5

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

further averred in paragraph 6 of the written statement that disputes inter se among family members led to the institution of O.S.No.6423/2009. On these premises, defendant No.5 asserted that the plaintiffs have no semblance of right, title, or interest over the suit lands. It is further pleaded that the plaint is conspicuously silent as to the source of title and that no title documents are produced or even referred to by the plaintiffs, and therefore sought dismissal of the suit.

¶53

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues for determination. The parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon appreciation of the evidence placed on record and after considering the rebuttal evidence led by the defendants, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, recording a categorical finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

This Court has heard the learned counsel

¶58

appearing for plaintiff No.2 and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.5. Being the first appellate Court and the final fact-finding authority, this Court has carefully examined the pleadings, independently reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, and assessed the correctness of the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

¶59

In the light of the rival submissions and upon re-appreciation of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration:

¶60

"(i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that

¶61

the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property is perverse or calls for interference?

¶62

(ii) Whether the defendants, particularly

¶63

defendant No.5, have succeeded in establishing that the suit lands were the subject matter of

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

proceedings before the Land Tribunal and that occupancy rights were lawfully conferred in favour of the ancestor of defendant No.5?

¶68

(iii) What Order?

¶69

Finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

¶70

Before this Court proceeds to examine the plaintiffs' assertion that they are the absolute owners as archakas of Lakshmi Narayanaswamy temple, this Court deems it fit to extract paras 3 to 5 of the plaint which reads as under:

¶71

"3. The plaintiffs submits that Thpasvi Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Gavi Palys is having 83 acres 11 guntas of land consisting of survey No. 1 to 16. The Plaintiffs and 5 others Archakas are cultivating the land by doing pooja of the temple. In that plaintiff and his sons are cultivating the suit schedule property measuring 13 acres 04 guntas including 17 guntas of karab land which covers the survey Nos. 5,7,8 and 10 belongs to the Thapsvi Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Gavipalya, Bangalore North Taluk.

¶72

4. The plaintiffs submits that the defendants No. 4 to 7 are the wife & sons of late Maregowda filed form No.7 in LRF/HSR/13-12/75-76 dated 23-04-1987 before the

¶73

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

land tribunal at Bangalore North Taluk to grant the occupancy rights in favour of them. After conducting the case. The land tribunal rejected the claim of the defendants 4 to 7. The defendants 4 to 7 prefer an writ before the Hon'ble High court. Of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.21262/2005 the Hon'ble High court dismiss the writ petition to liberty to file a civil case and to get the remedy before the civil court herewith produce the copy of the land tribunal an orders of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka.

¶77

5. The plaintiffs on the basis of the orders in the writ petition 21262/2005 are filling this case to get their lands as per the enjoyment of the schedule property of Thapasvi Muni Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Gavipalya, Dasanapura Hobali, Bangalore North Taluk. In that writ petition the first plaintiff is also filed the miscellaneous petition for thir rights to get the suit schedule property."

¶78

On a meticulous examination of paragraphs 3 to 5 of the plaint, this Court finds that though the plaintiffs have instituted what is styled as a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs, they have conspicuously failed to disclose or even refer to any foundational title documents on the basis of which the suit is laid. Beyond a bare assertion that the plaintiffs are Archakas of the Lakshmi Narayanaswami Temple and that

¶79

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the suit lands are attached to the deity, the plaint is wholly silent as to the source of title, mode of acquisition, or the manner in which ownership is claimed. The pleadings do not indicate whether title is claimed by grant, succession, prescription, or otherwise. In a suit for declaration of title, such omissions strike at the very root of the plaintiffs’ case, as the burden squarely lies on the plaintiffs to plead and prove the origin and continuity of title.

¶83

Per contra, defendant No.5 has set up a clear, specific, and legally sustainable defence. In the written statement, defendant No.5 has categorically pleaded the nature and character of the suit lands as inam lands, has traced the possessory and tenancy rights of his ancestor, and has further pleaded that upon the coming into force of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, proceedings were initiated before the competent Land Tribunal. It is specifically averred that the grandfather of defendant No.5 filed Form No.7 and that the Land Tribunal, by order dated 23.04.1987, conferred

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

occupancy rights in respect of the suit lands. These pleadings are not vague or evasive but disclose a complete chain of events supported by statutory proceedings.

¶88

In this context, paragraphs 4 to 6 of the written statement, which go to the very root of the dispute and directly rebut the plaintiffs’ bald assertions of title, assume significance and are therefore extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶89

"4. The lands in question is an area of 13 acres 4 guntas (Including 17 guntas Karab) in Survey number 5, 7, 8 and 10 of Gavipalya Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. These lands form part of a larger extent of land measuring 83 Acres 11 guntas in Survey Number 1 to 16 of Gavipalya Village (for short, Jodi Gavipalya lands).

¶90

5. It is submitted that these lands were being cultivated by the grandfather of this defendant i.e., AM Channamaregowda under lease right from 1936-37. After the Land Reforms Act, came into force, the father of this respondent H. Mare Gowda made an application for conferment of occupancy rights for these lands and the basis for this claim was the possession of these lands by the grandfather of this defendant AM Channamare Gowda.

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

On 23.4.1987, the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in respect of the Jodi Gavipalya lands. Thus, these lands are coparcenary properties.

¶95

6. It is pertinent to state here that the sisters of this defendant i.e., Smt. Mayadevi and Smt. Veena had filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession in OS no. 6423 of 2009 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The suit came to be partly decreed on 20.2.2019 and it is held that these lands are ancestral of this defendant's family. Thus, in view of the declaration by a superior court, this suit is liable to be dismissed."

¶96

This Court also deems it fit to extract the

¶97

schedule in the plaint since this Court has noticed complete vagueness in the averments in the plaint which

¶98

has continued even in the schedule. The schedule is extracted as under:

¶99

"SCHEDULE

¶100

Part and parcel of the land bearing Survey Nos. 5,7,8 and 10 consists of 13-04 guntas including 17 guntas of karab situated at Gavipalya village, Dasanapura Hobali, Bangalore North Taluk bounded as follows;

¶101

East by : Gavipalya village, Boundary

¶102

West by : Survey No. 6, 11, 12 of Gavipalya village

¶103

12 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

North by : Survey No. 4,6 of Gavipalya

¶107

South by : Survey No. 8,9 and Gavi playa village Boundary"

¶108

A careful scrutiny of the suit schedule reveals that the plaintiffs have clubbed together four distinct agricultural lands, namely Survey Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 10, admeasuring in all 13 acres 04 guntas, including 17 guntas of karab, and have assigned common boundaries to all the said survey numbers. On examination, this mode of description is not only vague but inherently defective. The common boundaries furnished in the schedule do not tally with the village map produced at Exhibit P5, which clearly depicts the actual physical demarcation and relative positioning of the said survey numbers. The inconsistency between the schedule description and the village map strikes at the very identity of the suit property. Proper identification of immovable property is a sine qua non in a suit for declaration of title, and any ambiguity or incorrect description thereof renders the relief unenforceable. Even otherwise, when multiple survey numbers are sought to be

¶109

13 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

covered under a single schedule, each survey number ought to have been distinctly identified with accurate boundaries, which the plaintiffs have failed to do.

¶113

Be that as it may, in a suit seeking declaration of title, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 casts a clear and unambiguous burden upon the plaintiffs to establish their legal character or right to property. On perusal of the plaint averments, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have not traced their title to the suit lands in any legally cognizable manner. Except a bald assertion made in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the suit lands are attached to Lakshmi narayanaswami Temple, there is no pleading as to the origin of title, the nature of the grant, or the manner in which ownership is claimed. The plaintiffs’ entire claim of title rests solely on the assertion that they are Archakas attached to the said deity, which, by itself, does not confer ownership rights over the inam lands.

¶114

14 -

¶115

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

The pleadings in the plaint are not only deficient

¶118

but are also ambiguous and incomplete. The plaintiffs have

¶119

unequivocally admitted that the suit lands are inam lands, yet have failed to plead how such inam lands vested in them as owners. The assertion that the plaintiffs, being Archakas, have acquired title over the suit lands is not supported by any factual foundation or statutory pleadings. Though under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, even an Archaka could seek registration as an occupant subject to fulfillment of statutory requirements, the plaint is conspicuously silent as to whether the plaintiffs ever made an application before the Land Tribunal seeking registration of occupancy rights. There is no averment regarding filing of Form No.7, no reference to any proceedings before the Land Tribunal, nor any challenge to the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶120

In stark contrast, defendant No.5 has placed on record cogent rebuttal evidence, more particularly Exhibit

¶121

15 -

¶122

NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

D1, to demonstrate that the suit lands were the subject matter of statutory proceedings before the Land Tribunal and that occupancy rights were conferred in favour of the ancestor of defendant No.5. The evidence further establishes that the rights flowing from such conferment are presently the subject matter of an inter se dispute among the family members of defendant No.5, which is pending adjudication in a partition suit. The plaintiffs have neither questioned the validity of the Land Tribunal order nor have they sought any declaratory relief to set aside the conferment of occupancy rights, which has attained finality.

¶125

On an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs, without establishing any lawful cause of action, have instituted the present suit which is not supported by even a semblance of title documents. The Trial Court, having framed Issue No.1 with reference to ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit

¶126

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:5086 RFA No. 542 of 2025

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

property, was fully justified in answering the said issue in the negative. On a holistic reading of the plaint averments, this Court is constrained to observe that the plaint itself does not disclose a valid cause of action, as the foundational facts necessary to sustain a suit for declaration are conspicuously absent.

¶129

Even upon independent re-appreciation of the entire material on record, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their claim of title. Consequentially, the plaintiffs have also failed to establish their exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. This Court is further of the view that the boundaries indicated in the schedule are imaginary, fictitious, and incapable of identifying the suit property with certainty. On this ground alone, the discretionary relief of declaration cannot be granted. For all the foregoing reasons, the findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from perversity or illegality and do not warrant interference.

¶130