Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
Sri. Dyamanna, S/o. Amasidda Kattikar and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sri. Ranjeet @ Appasaheb, S/o. Kashinatha Patil and Anr. – Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No.100436 of 2025 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 25-06-2025
For the Appellants :Smt. Pallavi S. Pachapure, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, Advocate
A suit for declaration of ownership is maintainable without seeking possession if the plaintiff proves continuous possession, despite fraudulent alienation by the defendant.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Partition and ownership disputes - The plaintiff was declared the absolute owner of suit properties after establishing a valid partition with his brother. The alienation of these properties by the defendant No.1 was deemed not binding. The defendants' appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decree. (Paras 1, 22, 24)
(B) Maintainability of suit - A suit for mere declaration of ownership and not possession was deemed maintainable, as the plaintiff asserted continuous possession despite defendant's documents. (Paras 9, 23)
(C) Onus of proof - The burden of proof lies with the party challenging evidence, and mere denial without factual support is insufficient. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, after a partition in 1995, was deprived of property due to collusion and forged documents created by defendant No.1. His previous attempts to rectify the situation through revenue proceedings were either ignored or manipulated by the defendant. The defendant subsequently sold portions of the property to others.
Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts confirmed the plaintiff's ownership based on the original partition and proceedings.
Issues: 1) Ownership rights over the suit properties; 2) Validity of the alienations made by defendant No.1; 3) Maintainability of a suit for declaration without possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that ownership does not necessitate possession at the suit's initiation; past proceedings validated the plaintiff's claim of ownership, and fraudulent actions by the defendant were recognized.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing land ownership necessitates a clear title. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over property alienation raises issues of title and possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. final decision reaffirms trial court's ruling on ownership disputes. (Para 8 , 25) |
| 4. vigilance in asserting ownership rights affects claims in revenue disputes. (Para 10 , 11 , 19) |
| 5. validity of title and unlawful alienation result in ineffective property transactions. (Para 20 , 22 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
(M.G.S. KAMAL, J.)
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.2, the legal representatives of defendant No.3, and defendant Nos.4 and 5, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2022 passed in O.S. No.96/2021 (Old O.S. No.1522/2012) on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kagawad (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”). By the said judgment and decree, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed, declaring the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the suit properties and the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5 in respect of the suit properties as not binding on the plaintiff and further, the defendants have been permanently restrained from alienating the suit property.
2. The subject matter of the suit are the following properties:
| Sl. No. | R.S.No. | Extent A-G | Assessment Rs-Ps. |
| 1. | 37/2+3/2A | 01-05 | 00-93 |
| 2. | 37/2+3/2C | 01-36 | 01-58 |
| 3. | 37/2+3/2B | 01-38 | 01-62 |
| 4. | 37/2+3/2D | 03-01 | 03-01 |
3. The case of the plaintiff is that:
(a) Originally land in RS No.37/2+3 was measuring 16 acres 35 guntas. That in a partition between him and his brother, Raosab Kashinath Patil, the plaintiff was allotted 8 acres of land while his brother was allotted 8 acres 35 guntas of land. The portion that was allotted to the share of plaintiff is assigned with RS No.37/2+3/B, while the portion that was allotted to his brother was assigned with RS No.37/2+3/A. A joint Vardi was given by the plaintiff and his brother Raosab Kashinath Patil on 04.10.1995, which was certified and entered in ME No.1421 effecting the partition. Thus, ever since the date of partition in the year 1995, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of his portion of the property bearing RS No.37/2+3/B and his brother was in possession of RS No.37/2+3/A of Mangasuli village.
(b) Defendant No.1 who is the wife of said Raosab Kashinath Patil in collusion with him created a bogus partition deed thereby suit property belonging to the plaintiff in RS No.37/2+3/B came to be entered in her name vide ME No.1866 on 17.06.1998 behind the back of the plaintiff without his knowledge and notice.
(c) That on learning about the same, the plaintiff initiated RTS proceedings bearing Appeal No.106/1998-99 before the Deputy Tahasildar, Kagwad and thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi. The Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi had stayed the execution and operation of the order of the Deputy Tahasildar. Thereafter, with intervention and mediation of the elderly persons a compromise petition came to be filed in the aforesaid RTS proceedings and order came to be passed. Respondent No.1 (defendant herein) in the said appeal agreed that the appellant (plaintiff herein) to be the owner of the suit land in RS No.37/2+3/B and the said land shown in the name of the appellant (plaintiff herein). It is further contended that, the plaintiff was under the impression that the name of defendant No.1 had been deleted in terms of the compromise entered into the said RTS Appeal No.106/1998-99. However, despite the compromise, the name of defendant No.1 continued in the revenue records in respect of land bearing RS No.37/2+3/B. Taking advantage of the same, the defendant No.1 sold the suit land in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5 which the plaintiff learnt recently.
(d) The defendant No.1 sold an extent of 1 acre 36 guntas out of 8 acres in RS No.37/2+3/B in favour of one Dyamanna Kattikar (defendant No.2) of Mole in terms of deed of sale dated 19.07.2010.
