Proper documentary evidence, including ancient registered deeds, must be considered in ownership disputes, and failure to do so constitutes a denial of justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for declaration and injunction.

2. The plaintiffs claimed declaration of title for property bearing Sy.No.46/2 measuring 1.19 guntas in Gollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk.

3. The plaintiffs' case is as under:

- Plaintiffs claim ownership of the property based on the registered partition deed dated 08.04.1953 and registered gift deed dated 20.09.1956. One Beerappa was the propositus. Chikkaiah@Dodda Chikkaiah, the last son of Beerappa is the plaintiffs' father and Chikkaiah@Dodda Chikkaiah died during the pendency of the suit.

- The plaintiffs claim that their father Chikkaiah@Dodda Chikkaiah was allotted the suit property in the partition of 1953 and on 20.09.1956, Chikkaiah@Dodda Chikkaiah executed a gift deed along with his two sons namely Adivappa and Beerappa, who are the brothers of the plaintiffs.

- The suit is filed on the premise that Malappa S/o Chikkachikkaiah, the grandson of Doddamalappa, got his name entered in the property records by taking advantage of the situation that his name resembles with Chikkaiah the plaintiffs' father and thereafter, the property was sold to Narayanaswamy, who is also the grandson of Doddamalappa from his elder son Beerappa.

- The plaintiffs claim that despite there is a sale deed, Narayanaswamy, has not acquired any right over the property as the seller did not have any title of the property. The property belonged to Chikkaiah@Dodda Chikkaiah, the plaintiffs' father and based on the registered partition deed dated 08.04.1953 and registered gift deed dated 20.09.1956, the plaintiffs have acquired absolute ownership and possession of the property.

4. Defendant No.1-Malappa and defendant No.2 his wife Gowramma did not contest the suit, and remained ex- parte. The purchaser - Narayanaswamy appeared and did not file written statement. Defendants did not lead any evidence. However, defendant No.3 was permitted to cross-examine the plaintiffs without there being any written statement.

5. The trial Court concluded that the registered partition deed dated 08.04.1953 is not established as the said document is not marked in evidence. It is relevant to notice that original partition deed dated 08.04.1953 is not produced, however the certified copy was produced and evidence is led stating that original is not available.

6. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession based on the stray statement in the cross-examination of PW.1 who stated that pursuant to the registered sale deed, defendant No.3 is in possession of the property. Hence, the appeal is filed before First Appellate Court.

7. Before First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs/appellants filed an application for production of additional documents namely one more certified copy of the registered partition deed dated 08.04.1953 and also the orders passed by the Revenue Officials who cancelled the mutation entry in the name of Narayanaswamy and also the vendor of Narayanaswamy namely Malappa.

8. The application for production of additional documents was rejected by Appellate Court on the premise that these documents are obtained subsequent to filing of the suit and no case is made out for production of additional documents. Consequently, Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal.

9. This appeal was admitted on 22.08.2014 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

"1. When the appellants had pleaded that the suit property fell to the share of Chickaiah @ Dodda Chickaiah in a partition and inturn it was