Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Sri Chikkavenkataiah, S/o Late Muddaiah - Appellant
Versus
Sri Ningegowda @ Umesh, S/o Late D L Madhegowda - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 266 of 2021 (DEC/INJ)
Decided on : 01-09-2025
For the Appellant :SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE
Court ruled that absence of clear boundaries in title documents invalidates property claims, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Ex.P4 Hakku Patra lacks necessary boundaries to identify suit property, leading to dismissal of the suit - Courts concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the property despite his claims - Absence of material proof derails the appeal. (Paras 4, 11, 13, 20, 30)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 3 - Courts justified in rejecting documents that do not identify the property adequately - Lack of pleadings from the defendants does not preclude the necessity of proving the plaintiff's claims. (Paras 4, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction over a site at Doddakabballi Village but failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish his ownership or boundaries of the property, which led to the dismissal by both the trial and appellate courts.
Findings of Court:
Both the trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit due to the plaintiff's inability to provide the necessary evidence and establish entitlement over the property in question.
Issues: Whether the courts below justified the rejection of Ex.P4 due to lack of identifiable boundaries; whether the plaintiff’s claims could standalone given the absence of a defense from the defendants; whether rejection of the plaintiff's evidence without proper consideration was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in establishing property claims, reiterating that without clear boundaries and sufficient proof of ownership, the plaintiff’s claims cannot be upheld.
Result: The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appellant's case and substantial questions. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. plaintiff's claims and previous litigation history. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidentiary shortcomings. (Para 11 , 12 , 20) |
| 4. (Para 13) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri. Ravishankar S., learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. He has challenged the validity of the judgement and decree passed in O.S. No.32/2013 whereby a suit for declaration came to be dismissed which was confirmed in R.A.5156/2019 (old R.A.No.4/2017).
4. Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
A) Whether the courts below justified in rejecting Ex.P4 the Hakkupatra on the ground that the same does not disclose any boundaries when it refers to number of the property allotted which could be sufficient to identify the suit schedule property within the meaning of Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
B) Whether the courts below justified in going beyond the pleading to hold that the suit schedule property is not identifiable in the absence any boundaries being referred to in ExP4 when the defendants have not set up any defense by filing their written statement.
C) Whether the courts below justified in holding that the Ex. P5 to P11 the assessment extract being issued by the Kodihalli Panchayat and the claim of the appellant is in respect of the property situated in Doddakabballi village without analyzing the fact that Doddakabballi Village is situated within the territory of Kodihalli Hobli and Panchayath refers to Ex.P5 to P11 is the group of various villages constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act 1993.
D) Whether the court below justified in holding that Under Ex.P4 the number of site referred is 1 and the appellant claims that the number of the suit schedule property as 56/1 without going to the contents of the Ex.P 5 to P11 wherein 56 refers to the serial number maintained in the Books of the Village Panchayat and the property numbers refers to 1.
5. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the court below
6. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under :
Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.32/2013 for relief of declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property which is a site having old Khaneshumari No.56/1, new 112/56/1 measuring 50 feet x 40 feet consisting of a shed situated at Dadakabballi Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District (hereinafter referred to as suit property)
SCHEDULE
Property bearing Khaneshumari No. Old 56/1, New 112/56/1, measuring 50X40 feet, consisting of Shed, situated at Doddakabballi Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapuara Taluk, Ramanagara District and bounded on the :
East by: Land of Narayanagowda,
West by: Property of Jayamma,
North by: Road,
South by: Land of Narayanagowda.
7. Plaintiff claims that he has been granted the above site in memory of 25th year of independence as the plaintiff was economically and socially downtrodden person. To evidence the said grant, plaintiff has filed 'Hakku Pathra' issued by Tahsildar, Kanakapura.
8. It is contended that defendants have no right whatsoever in respect of the said suit property, tried to interfere with the suit property and they claimed that their site is situated in Sy.No.162 of Doddakabballi Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk which was granted for Siddappaji Temple and that site has got nothing to do with the suit property.
9. It is further contended that plaintiff had filed O.S.No.248/2002 against defendants for permanent injunction. Said suit was dismissed and thereafter the present suit came to be filed.
10. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants appeared before the Court through their counsel but failed to file any written
