Smt K Sumathi Vs Sri M B Kambanna — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt K Sumathi Vs Sri M B Kambanna — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing the title of their vendor, defendant No.2, over the suit schedule property? +2 more

Court's answer

The entire edifice of the plaintiffs' title claim rests solely on the bare, self-serving assertion that defendant No.2 inherited the suit schedule property as son-in-law of late L. Manikam; beyond this, the pleadings are conspicuously silent on any legally admissible material substantiating the claim.

Ratio / Principle

No death certificates of late Manikam or of Nirmala Nityakumari were produced; nor any birth records, family registers, school records, ration card, electoral records or other public document establishing that Manikam had a daughter of that name, nor any document demonstrating the marital relationship between defendant No.2 and Nirmala Nityakumari.

Key takeaways

Mutation/khatha entries and payment of taxes do not confer title and at best have limited evidentiary value for fiscal purposes; no khatha extract, tax receipts or municipal records were produced, and the sweeping, unsupported allegation that the Will relied on by defendants 3 and 4 was forged could not displace the burden on the plaintiffs to first establish their own title and that of their vendor.ratio¶86
In a suit for declaration of title, mere assertions in the plaint, howsoever detailed, cannot take the place of proof.ratio¶90

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No. 597 of 2012 (DEC/INJ), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Sachin Shankar Magadum J., judgment dated 12.01.2026: Appeal under S.96 CPC by unsuccessful plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2012 in O.S.No.1487/2005 (V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore) dismissing their suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, whereby they sought to set aside the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.1, and claimed absolute ownership of portion 'EFDGE' under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2004 from defendant No.2 - alleged sole surviving heir (son-in-law) of late L. Manikam through his predeceased daughter Nirmala Nitya Kumari. Held, dismissing the appeal: the plaintiffs' title case rested solely on the bare, self-serving assertion that defendant No.2 inherited the property as son-in-law of late L. Manikam; no death certificates, birth/school/family-register/ration-card/electoral records or other public document proved the daughter's existence, and no document proved her marriage to defendant No.2; khatha/mutation entries and tax payments confer no title and none were produced; the plea that the Will relied on by defendants 3 and 4 was forged was a sweeping allegation unsupported by documentary or expert evidence; in a declaration suit mere assertions cannot replace proof, the plaintiff must stand on his own legs (ss.101-104, Evidence Act 1872), and no provision of law was demonstrated whereby a son-in-law succeeds to his father-in-law; defendant No.2 remained ex parte. Failing to prove the vendor's title, the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the 15.12.2003 sale deed, and absent a counter-claim the Trial Court rightly refrained from adjudicating defendant No.1's title; declaration (S.34) and injunction (S.38), Specific Relief Act 1963, were both unavailable without an established right. Points (i) and (ii) answered in the negative; appeal dismissed. The earlier injunction suit O.S.No.2556/2004 (Ex.P5) had likewise recorded failure to establish title. No precedent cases cited.

1 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT. K. SUMATHI W/O SRI. R. MURALI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

SRI. R. MURALI S/O LATE RAMANATHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

3(a) SMT. K. SULOCHANA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs

SRI. K. SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE KALIYAPERUMAL R/A NO.25, KOTHANUR NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE DR. SHIVARAMA KARANATH NAGAR BANGALORE-560 077 ALONG WITH 1^ST APPELLANT K. SUMATHI

SL.NO. 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT PORTION OF PREMISES NO.82, ITI LAYOUT, 1^ST MAIN ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BANGALORE-560 046.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. M.B. KAMBANNA S/O YARAPPA

2 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.97, M.R.S PALYA, NANDIDURG ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BANGALORE-560046.

SRI. K. JOHN RAVISHANKAR SINCE DEAD NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

SMT. NAGAPUSHAM W/O LATE R.M. SATHYARAJ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

SRI. PURSHOTHAM S/O LATE R.M. SATHYARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.7, 145-B CROSS CHINNAPPA GARDEN BANGALORE-560 010.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. J. PRABAKAR, SRI. M.B. SHESHAGIRI & SRI. D. MURUGAN, ADVOCATES FOR R1; V/O DATED 03.07.2013, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH;

V/O DATED 22.08.2013, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2012 IN O.S.No.1487/2005, PASSED BY V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.01.2026, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

3 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

C.A.V JUDGMENT

Captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs who are assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.1487/2005 wherein the trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

The facts leading to the filing of the present case, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a declaration to set aside the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.1 and to further declare the said sale deed as void, null and not binding on their rights. Consequentially, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they are the absolute owners of a portion of the suit schedule property, namely portions marked as 'EFDGE', on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2004 executed in their favour by defendant No.2. A further consequential relief of perpetual

4 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

injunction was sought restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiffs’ alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

The plaintiffs trace their title through defendant No.2, who, according to them, is the son-in-law of one late L. Manikam. It is their specific case that L. Manikam died on 18.10.1996, leaving behind his daughter, Nirmala Nitya Kumari, and his son-in-law, defendant No.2, as his legal heirs. It is further pleaded that Nirmala Nitya Kumari died on 06.03.1997 and, thereafter, defendant No.2, being the sole surviving heir, succeeded to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs contend that defendant No.2 got his name mutated in respect of the suit schedule property and, being the absolute owner, conveyed the same in favour of plaintiffs under the registered sale deed dated 11.02.2004.

The plaintiffs have further averred, particularly in paragraph 3 of the plaint, that defendant No.1 attempted to interfere with their possession, which

5 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

compelled them to file a suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S. No.2556/2004. By furnishing the family tree of their vendor, defendant No.2, the plaintiffs assert absolute title

to the entire suit schedule property. On that premise, they have challenged the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.1, contending that defendants 3 and 4 are total strangers to the family of late Manikam and, in the absence of probate, had no saleable title. Consequently, it is asserted that defendant No.1 cannot claim any right, title or interest over the portions 'EFDGE' of the suit schedule property.

Per contra, defendant No.1, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement, stoutly denying all the averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.1 claims title to the suit schedule property ('EFDGE') on the basis of the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in his favour. It is contended that his vendors were legatees under a valid testament and, therefore, possessed valid and saleable title. Defendant No.1 has seriously disputed the

6 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim by contending that late Manikam had no daughter by name Nirmala Nitya Kumari and, consequently, defendant No.2 could not have inherited any right or interest in the suit schedule property.

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title over the suit schedule property.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

On consideration of the records, the following points arise for determination:

7 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

"(i) Whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing the title of their vendor, defendant No.2, over the suit schedule property?

(ii) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title, despite holding a sale deed dated 11.02.2004 executed by defendant No.2, suffers from perversity or illegality?

(iii) What order?

FINDING ON POINT Nos. (i) and (ii):

Before this Court adverts to the rival claims of plaintiffs and defendants over the suit schedule property, it would be absolutely necessary to extract the relevant pleadings averred in the plaint. Paras 4 to 7 are relevant,

and the same are extracted as under:

"4. The plaintiffs submit having come to know the above fact approached the defendant No.2 and brought to his notice about the claim made by the defendant No.1, to this he was surprised and revealed as under. That he being the Son-in-Law of Late. L. Manikam, and the Genealogical Tree of his family is as under :-

8 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

Late L.Manikam (Died on 18.10.1996)

Nirmala Nitya Kamari (Daughter) (Died on 06.03.1997)

Leaving behind her husband Sri. Ravi Shankar (the defendant No.2) As the sole survivor

5. That during the life time of the Late L. Manikam, he had purchased the property under a registered Sale Deed bearing L.Manikam, under a Document No.3036 Book-I, Volume-1155, Pages at 107 to 112, in the Office of the Sub Registrar of Civil Station Bangalore, and out of the total property he had sold a portion of the plan marked in Green Colour, measuring East to West 22 Feet, North to South 22 Feet, to the defendants No.3 & 4 and retained the property marked in Blue & Red Colour in the enclosed plan.

6. That the said Late L.Manikam, died in 18.10.1996, leaving behind his daughter Nirmala Nitya Kamari and his Son-in-Law the defendant No.2, as his survivors and Nirmala Nitya Kamari died on 06.03.1997, leaving behind the defendant No.2, as her heir thus the defendant No.2 became the sole successor of the schedule property of the Late L.Manikam.

7. When the matter stood thus the defendant No.2 being the sole successor of the property of the Late L. Manikam, got the khatha transferred in his name in the records of the BMP, Bangalore, and was in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes regularly till he

9 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

sold the same to the plaintiffs and being the absolute owner of the schedule property, as absolute owner and he sold the schedule property to the plaintiffs. Further the defendant No.2, also revealed that his late father in law had never executed any WILL in favour of the defendant No.3 & 4, and after the death of Late L. Manikam, he got the khatha changed to his name, if at all the defendants No.3 & 4 were to be the beneficiaries they would have got the khatha changed in their names by getting the alleged WILL probated in the competent civil court, but on the other hand they kept quite for a period of 7 years after the death of his father in law in the year 2003 have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 without getting the khatha transferred in their names by this it is clear that the said WILL is forged one and is created by the defendants 1, 3 and 4, to knock of the valuable property, thereby by this it is clear that neither the defendants No.3 & 4 were the owners of the portion marked by letters D, E, F, G & D in the enclosed plan out of the schedule property.

When the matter stood thus the plaintiffs having come to know of the above fact, now have come up before this Hon'ble Court to set aside the said alleged Sale Deed."

A careful reading of the pleadings discloses serious and fundamental inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ case. While at paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs assert that defendant No.2 is the son-in-law of late

10 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

Manikam, at paragraph 6 they further assert that Manikam had a daughter by name Nirmala Nityakumari and that defendant No.2 is her husband. These foundational facts, which form the very basis of the plaintiffs’ claim of title, remain wholly unsubstantiated.

A close and careful scrutiny of the extracted pleadings at paragraphs 4 to 7 of the plaint makes it abundantly clear that the entire edifice of the plaintiffs’ claim rests solely on the assertion that defendant No.2 inherited the suit schedule property as the son-in-law of late L. Manikam. Beyond this bare and self-serving assertion, the pleadings are conspicuously silent as to any legally admissible material that would substantiate such a claim.

The genealogical tree set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint is a mere narration put forth by the plaintiffs, allegedly based on the disclosure made by defendant No.2. Significantly, the said genealogical tree is not supported by any contemporaneous or independent documentary

11 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

evidence. No birth certificate, school record, family register extract, ration card, electoral record, or any public document has been produced to establish that late L. Manikam had a daughter by name Nirmala Nitya Kumari. Equally, no marriage certificate or any other document has been placed on record to demonstrate that defendant No.2 was in fact the husband of the said Nirmala Nitya Kumari. The pleadings, therefore, remain at the level of a bald assertion, unsupported by proof.

In paragraph 6, the plaintiffs reiterate that Manikam died leaving behind his daughter and son-in-law as his survivors and that, upon the subsequent death of the daughter, defendant No.2 became the sole successor to the estate. This assertion again proceeds on an assumption of inheritance, without disclosing the legal basis under which a son-in-law would succeed to the property of his father-in-law. The pleadings do not refer to any testamentary disposition, statutory provision, or custom governing succession, nor do they disclose any document evidencing such succession. In the absence of

12 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

proof of a Will, a deed of settlement, or proof of inheritance under the applicable law of succession, the claim that defendant No.2 became the “sole successor” remains wholly unsubstantiated.

Paragraph 7 of the plaint seeks to fortify the plaintiffs’ case by stating that defendant No.2 got the khatha transferred in his name and paid taxes regularly, thereby projecting himself as the absolute owner. However, mutation entries or payment of taxes, even if assumed to exist, do not confer title and at best have a limited evidentiary value for fiscal purposes. More importantly, no khatha extract, tax paid receipts, or municipal records have been produced to corroborate even this assertion. The further allegation that late Manikam never executed any Will in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and that the Will relied upon by them is forged is again a sweeping allegation, unsupported by any documentary or expert evidence. Such an allegation, in the absence of proof, cannot displace the burden cast upon the plaintiffs to first establish their own title and that of their vendor.

13 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

What emerges from the extracted pleadings is that the plaintiffs have sought to build their case on conjectures and assumptions, rather than on legally acceptable evidence. The pleadings merely reproduce what defendant No.2 is stated to have “revealed” to the plaintiffs, but such statements, without corroboration, do not acquire evidentiary value. Except for producing the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in their favour, the plaintiffs have not placed on record a single document to demonstrate that defendant No.2 had any inheritable or transferable right in the suit schedule property.

In a suit for declaration of title, mere assertions in the plaint, howsoever detailed, cannot take the place of proof. The extracted pleadings, therefore, clearly demonstrate that except for a bald claim that defendant No.2 inherited the property as a son-in-law of late Manikam, the plaintiffs have failed to corroborate their case with any documentary evidence. Consequently, the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim remains unproved,

14 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

rendering their challenge to the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 legally unsustainable.

The plaintiffs have not produced the death certificates of late Manikam or of Nirmala Nityakumari. No documentary evidence such as birth records, family registers, school records, ration card, electoral records or any other public document has been placed on record to establish that Manikam had a daughter by name Nirmala Nityakumari. Equally, no document has been produced to demonstrate the marital relationship between defendant No.2 and the said Nirmala Nityakumari. Except producing their own sale deed, the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, a paper publication and the judgment in O.S.No.2556/2004, the plaintiffs have not placed any legally acceptable evidence to prove that defendant No.2 is the son-in-law of Manikam or that he had any inheritable right in the suit schedule property.

The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2556/2004, which is marked at Ex.P5, clearly

15 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

reveal that even in the earlier suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiffs failed to establish their title. It is only on account of such failure that the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the present comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs, while also seeking to invalidate the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 executed in favour of defendant No.1.

Before the plaintiffs could acquire any locus to challenge the sale deed obtained by defendant No.1 through defendants 3 and 4, it was incumbent upon them to first establish a clear and unimpeachable title through their vendor, defendant No.2. The burden of proof in this regard squarely rested upon the plaintiffs in terms of Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandate that the party asserting the existence of a fact must prove the same. The plaintiffs, having sought a declaration of title, were required to strictly prove not only their own title but also the title of their vendor.

16 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

The records further disclose that defendant

No.2 has remained exparte and has not chosen to support the plaintiffs’ case. No independent documentary or oral evidence has been adduced to establish that defendant No.2 had either inherited the suit schedule property or had any semblance of title thereto. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that defendant No.2 was the son-in-law of Manikam, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate under which provision of law a son-in-law would inherit the property of his father-in-law. In the absence of proof of succession, testamentary disposition or any statutory mode of inheritance, the claim of defendant No.2 to absolute ownership remains wholly unproven.

Apart from producing the sale deed marked at Ex.P2 and the judgment rendered in the earlier injunction suit, the plaintiffs have not placed any material on record to establish the chain of title. It is a settled principle that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must stand on his own legs and succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. This principle

17 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

flows directly from Sections 101 to 104 of the Evidence Act. The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs falls far short of the standard required to establish title, much less the title of defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property.

In that view of the matter, the Trial Court, notwithstanding any incidental finding on possession in the earlier suit, has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their title over the suit schedule property. Once the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title of their vendor - defendant No.2, they lack the legal standing to question the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 obtained by defendant No.1 through defendants 3 and 4. In the absence of a counter-claim by defendant No.1, the Trial Court was also justified in refraining from adjudicating upon the title of defendant No.1.

The relief of declaration sought by the plaintiffs is governed by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates that the plaintiff must establish a legal character or a right to property. Similarly, the

18 -

RFA No. 597 of 2012

consequential relief of injunction sought under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be granted only when the plaintiff establishes a subsisting legal right. Having failed to establish such a right, the plaintiffs are not entitled to either declaration or injunction.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, point nos. (i) and (ii) framed for consideration are answered in the Negative .

FINDING ON POINT NO.(iii)

In view of the findings recorded on point nos.

(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

ALB