Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
Durgappa, S/o. Sunkavva Harijan @ Madar Since Deceased By His Lr’s. - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Gram Panchayat - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.5049 of 2012 (DEC/INJ)
Decided on : 03-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent:SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE
Non-ownership claims must be substantiated with clear evidence; reliance on presumptive titles without supporting documentation results in dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections relevant to appeal process and evidence standards - Dismissal of declaration of ownership suit - The plaintiff claimed ownership of ancestral property which defendants contested, alleging lack of title evidence - Both courts found plaintiff failed to establish rightful ownership or link between properties, leading to dismissal - No substantial question of law raised on appeal. (Paras 4, 8, 12, 17)
(B) Evidence - Legal standards for establishing property claims - Courts emphasized that long-standing revenue entries alone do not confer ownership without corroborative evidence. (Paras 8, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership over property alleged to be ancestral, but defendants claimed ownership over the same property, presenting evidence of their title.
Findings of Court:
The courts concluded that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a consistent link between the properties claimed, nor establish his claimed right to ownership effectively.
Issues: Whether the courts erred in their appreciation of evidence and whether the trial court's findings were perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without cogent evidence proving ownership, the dismissal of the suit was warranted, confirming concurrent findings from lower courts.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession claims inception. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and claims. (Para 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of claims and evidence. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. appeal dismissed; trial court's order confirmed. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
Appellant-plaintiff is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2011 passed in OS No.188/2008 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal (for short ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of ownership and possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed which is confirmed by the judgement and order dated 30.11.2011 passed in RA No.38/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Koppal (for short ‘First Appellate Court’).
2. Case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing old No.40 and new No.257 measuring 28 ft. x 60 ft., within the boundaries described at paragraph No.2 of the plaint. That the said property is the ancestral property which has been in possession and enjoyment of his ancestors and now with the plaintiff. At paragraph No.5 of the plaint it is averred that the then Government of Hyderabad had granted another property bearing Nuzul No.169 in favour of the family of the plaintiff in the year 1938 A.D., corresponding to 1345 Fasli. The name of the ancestors of the plaintiff was accordingly entered in the revenue records. Subsequently, name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records from the year 1967- 68 by virtue of inheritance. The said property stands in the name of Durga S/o. Kalakappa. That, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 having no share, right, title or interest over the property, were attempting to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, which constrained the plaintiff to file the above suit seeking reliefs as noted above.
3. Defendants appeared through their counsel.Defendant No.4 filed written statement which has been adopted by defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. Defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff being owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the schedule property was granted by the then Government of Hyderabad in favour of the ancestors of plaintiff or that the property in No.169 was granted to the family of the plaintiff. It is specifically contended that, the property comprised in Nuzul No.169 situated at Ginigera totally measuring 220 square yards within the boundaries shown at paragraph No.7 of the written statement, belongs to them and the plaintiff has no right, share, title in the same. The name of Durga @ Durgappa shown in the Nuzul Extract pertaining to property No.169 is the grandfather of the defendants. Upon his demise, defendants and their legal representatives have been in possession of property.Contending so, sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and exhibited 18 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P18. On behalf of defendants, three witnesses were examined namely Mariyappa as DW1, Fakeerswamy as DW2 and Guruswamy as DW3 and exhibited 05 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D5.
6. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred regular appeal in RA No.38/2011. The First Appellate Court on considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal framed the following points for its considering:
“1. Whether the trial court is correct in appreciation of oral and documentary evidence?
2. Whether the judgment of the trial court is perverse, capricious and needs interference of this Court?
3. What order?”
7. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court an
