(note : to put short before the specific relief act)

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Court, Honnavar (Itinerary Court at Bhatkal) in RA No.55/2011 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2004 made by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Kumta in O.S.No.76/2000.

2. The brief facts stated are ;

(a) The respondent had instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.76/2000 seeking in effect a decree for declaration of title and consequential rectification of mutation entries in the Revenue Records concerning the suit lands bearing Survey No.203/01 admeasuring 01 Acres & 03 Guntas and Survey No.203/02 admeasuring 02 Acres in Yalavadikavooru of Bhatkal Taluk. The title suit appears to have been founded on the order of the land Tribunal granting occupancy under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Appellant being the Defendant resisted the suit by filing the Written Statement.

(b) To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff’s side had examined 3 witnesses namely Govinda Kuppayya Naik as PW-1, Narayan Durgayya Naik as PW-2 and Vakatramana Mastappa Naik as PW-3. The plaintiff had got marked 06 documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. Similarly, the Defendant’s side had examined 04 witnesses namely Smt. Sharada Ramakrishna Naik as DW-1, Ramakrishna Manjappa Naik as DW-2, Venkatramana Ram Naik as DW-3 and Ganapati Thaku Bhant as DW-4. Defendant also got marked 05 documents as Ex.D-1 to D-5.

3. The Trial Court had framed as many as 6 issues as under:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the lawful owner and in possession of Sy.No.203 of Yelwadikavru by virtue of Land Tribunal in LRM 27:1-B as contained in plaint?

(ii) Whether hefurther proves that he has given 10 guntas to Nagappa Manjayya Naik and Mahadevi Jatta Naik as contended in plaint ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the Tondi vantani made by defendant M.E.No.1906 and 1979 are declared to be void as contended in plaint?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaratory relief as prayed for ?

(v) Whether the court fee paid is improper?

(vi) What decree or order ?

4. Considering the pleadings of the parties and the documentary and oral evidence tendered by them, the Trial Court decreed the suit after answering all the issues in the affirmative. It held that, the oral partition pleaded by the defendant being invalid would not affect the interest of the plaintiff in the suit lands and that the Mutation Entry Nos.1906 and 1979 which were effected pursuant to the said oral partition were liable to be annulled.

5. The Appellant-Defendant filed R.A.No.55/2011 laying a challenge to the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court on various grounds enumerated in the appeal memo. The first Appellate Court had framed Principally two issues viz ;

“(i) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are unjust, arbitrary and illegal as contended in the appeal memo ?

(ii) Whether the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court are liable to be interfered with by the first Appellate Court?”

Both the issues were answered in the affirmative.

6. The first Appellate Court namely the learned Senior Civil Judge, Honnavar vide Judgment and Decree dated 15.03.2013 dismissed the Regular Appeal concurring with the finding and reasoning of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. After notice, the Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel. Matter is taken up for Admission.

7. The learned counsel for the Appellant Sri. J.S. Shetty contends that the suit as framed by the Respondent-Plaintiff is not maintainable because of the legal bar enacted by the Parliament in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in as much as the plaintiff has prayed for only a declaratory relief sans consequential relief. He reads the prayer column in the plaint to buttress his argument that the suit is only for a declaratory relief. In support of his conten