Dismissed¶108

Sri Chalapathi v. Sri Munivenkatappa

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026RSA/1752/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, RSA No.1752 of 2025 (DEC/INJ), Section 100 CPC, second appeal, declaration of title, permanent injunction, adverse possession by plaintiff, alternate pleas, burden to plead and prove legal title, Sy.No.60/1 28 guntas Avalamarakalagatta village Avani Hobli Mulbagal Taluk Kolar District, registered sale deed 03.07.1974 in favour of defendant No.1, gift deed, O.S.No.40/2010 Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Mulbagal, R.A.No.21/2020 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Mulbagal, no substantial question of law, admission declined, appeal dismissed, V Srishananda J, counsel Sri N.S.Bhat.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff failed both to plead and to prove legal title to the suit property; hence the relief of declaration was rightly refused by the courts below. ¶100

Sri Chalapathi Vs Sri Munivenkatappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶108

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff pleaded and proved legal title to the suit property so as to be entitled to a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. +2 more

¶99

Court's answer

The plaintiff failed both to plead and to prove legal title to the suit property; hence the relief of declaration was rightly refused by the courts below.

¶100

Ratio / Principle

A plaintiff cannot take alternate pleas; a claim of adverse possession requires specific pleading and proof of open, peaceful and unhindered enjoyment against the true owner, and where Kempegowda held the land as owner deriving interest from Munegowda, the plea of adverse possession has no meaning.

¶92

Key takeaways

There existed a registered sale deed of the year 1974 in favour of Defendant No.1 by his vendors covering the suit property, which undermined the plaintiff's title claim.ratio¶97
The plaintiff did not answer when he came into possession of the suit property and placed no supporting documents on record to substantiate the plaint averments.ratio¶98
Having regard to the scope of Section 100 CPC, no merit was found in any of the substantial questions of law; consequently admission was declined and the second appeal was dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC (Karnataka High Court, V Srishananda J.) — Declaration of title and permanent injunction — Suit property Sy.No.60/1 (28 guntas), Avalamarakalagatta village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District — Plaintiff claimed ownership through his grandfather Munegowda and alternatively pleaded adverse possession of 60-70 years enjoyed by himself and his father Kempegowda — Trial court (O.S.No.40/2010, Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, judgment dated 11.11.2020) and first appellate court (R.A.No.21/2020, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, judgment dated 16.07.2025) concurrently rejected the claim — Held: a plaintiff seeking declaration must plead and prove legal title; an adverse possession plea requires specific averments of open, peaceful and unhindered enjoyment against the true owner, none of which were made; where the plaintiff's predecessor held the land as owner deriving interest from the common ancestor, adverse possession is meaningless; a registered sale deed of 1974 stood in favour of Defendant No.1 and the plaintiff could not show when he entered possession nor produce supporting documents — No merit in any substantial question of law — Admission declined; appeal dismissed.

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1752 OF 2025(DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI CHALAPATHI S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT AVALAMARAKALAGATTA, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK-563131 KOLAR DISTRICT

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI N S BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY L.Rs

¶14

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT BHAGYAMMA W/O CHALAPATHI D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, KGF TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101

¶16

SMT VARADHAMMA W/O VENUGOPAL D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT BISANAHALLI VILLAGE DUGGASANDRA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK-563131 KOLAR DISTRICT-563101

¶17

SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O VENKATAREDDY

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶21

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶22

D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RA/T THAMMAREDDYHALLI VILLAGE, BYRAKURU HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563131

¶23

SMT VARALAKSHMI @ LAKSHMIDEVI W/O MUNIRAJU D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT ITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK-563114 KOLAR DISTRICT

¶24

SMT NANJAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT AVALAMARAKALAGATTA VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK-563131 KOLAR DISTRICT

¶25

SRI SRINIVASA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT AVALAMARAKALAGATTA VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK-563131 KOLAR DISTRICT

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2010 ON THE FILE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶32

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

Heard Sri N.S.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶36

This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents.

¶37

Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶38

Plaintiff's Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit in O.S No.40/2010 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, confirmed in R.A No.21/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal.

¶39

Facts of the case are as under:

¶40

5.1 A suit seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is

¶41

the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property came to be filed by the plaintiff in respect of the following property, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶45

“The property bearing Sy.No.60/1, measuring 28 guntas of Avalamarakalagatta village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, and bounded on the:

¶46

Venkataramarao.

¶47

5.2 Plaintiff claimed right, title and interest over the suit

¶48

property based on the fact that he is the grandson of Munegowda. The genealogy reads as under:

¶49

Munegowda
Munegowda
Doddappaiah
Chikkappaiah Munishamappa Kempegowda
(dead)
(dead) (dead) (dead)
Kempamma Chalapathi
(wife)
(Plaintiff)
Munivenkatappa Hanumantappa Narayanappa Krishnappa
(Deft.No.1) P.W-3
Bychappa
Srinivasa (P.W-2)
(Deft.No.2)

¶50

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶53

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶54

5.3 It is further contention of the plaintiff that father of the plaintiff viz., Kempegowda was the owner of suit property measuring 0.28 guntas and was in possession of the suit property, cultivating the said land and also carrying out agricultural activities, growing the crops ‘ragi’, ‘avare’, ‘groundnut’ etc. He was in enjoyment of this property for a period of more than 25 years, who had also grown eucalyptus trees over it.

¶55

5.4 After the death of Kempegowda, plaintiff became the absolute owner and defendants have no right, title or interest in respect of said property and plaintiff enjoyed the suit property by adversely enjoying the same for more than 60 to 70 years from the time of his father.

¶56

5.5 It is specific case of the plaintiff that on 03.02.2010 defendants illegally entered the suit property, tried to remove the eucalyptus trees and therefore, same was resisted.

¶57

5.6 On enquiry it was revealed that first defendant had executed the gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 on

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶61

29.09.2018 detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and therefore, suit came to be filed.

¶62

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel, filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto .

¶63

It was specifically contented that first defendant purchased the suit property along with other properties from its vendor for valuable consideration, by registered sale deed dated 03.07.1974 and possession was also delivered to defendant No.1 by his vendors.

¶64

It is further contented that the vendors of defendant No.1

¶65

had the marketable title. Therefore, suit is not only barred by limitation but speculative in nature and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶66

Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that,

¶67

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶70

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶71

plaintiff failed to make out any legal right in respect of the suit property.

¶72

Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed R.A No.21/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal.

¶73

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff confirming the dismissal of the suit.

¶74

Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

¶75

Defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives are brought on record.

¶76

Sri N.S.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that from the period of the father of the plaintiff viz., Kempegowda, who is the son of Munegowda, suit property is enjoyed by the father of the plaintiff. After death of father of

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶79

¶80

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶81

the plaintiff it is the plaintiff, who had enjoyed the suit property.

¶82

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that his father had grown eucalyptus trees and had also cultivated the land by raising the crops like ragi, avare, ground nut and such other crops.

¶83

However, to establish the said factual aspect, there is no material placed on record.

¶84

At another breath, plaintiff has also contended that since his father and himself owned the suit property for more than 60 to 70 years, therefore, they have perfected their title to the suit property adversely to the interest of all concerned and sought for declaration.

¶85

Both the Courts negated the contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiff on material facts and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶86

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶89

This Court in the light of the appeal grounds and the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum reconsidered the material on record.

¶90

In the first place plaintiff cannot have alternate pleas. No doubt, it is now settled that plaintiff can also seek declaration that he is in adverse possession of the suit property. To substantiate the said aspect of the matter, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to plead as to when he started enjoying the suit property openly and adversely to the interest of the true owner and such enjoyment must be without hindrance from anybody. It must also be open and peaceful

¶91

In the case on hand, any one of those parameters are pleaded, much less proved.

¶92

If Kempegowda being the fourth son of Munegowda has enjoyed the property as owner having derived the interest from Munegowda, the plea of adverse possession has no meaning at all.

¶93

10 -

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:37543 RSA No. 1752 of 2025

¶96

CNR: KAHC010721922025

¶97

There is a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 by his vendors including the suit property in the year 1974 itself.

¶98

If it is so, when did plaintiff came into the possession of the suit property is a question that needs to be answered. No supporting documents are also placed on record to substantiate the plaint averments.

¶99

It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that whenever a party approaches the Court for the relief of declaration, it is necessary for such party to not only plead but also prove the legal title to the suit property.

¶100

In the case on hand, plaintiff failed in both.

¶101

Accordingly this Court having regard to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not find merit in any one of the substantial questions of law.

¶102