Revenue records do not confer title over property and cannot solely support a claim for ownership without proper title documents.

JUDGMENT :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 in RA.No.78 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dismissing tSShe appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2004 in O.S.No.74 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Tarikere, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that, plaintiff No.1 Claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that, the father of plaintiff No.1- K.Thimmaiah inherited the suit schedule property from his ancestors, and in this regard, the extract of the Khata maintained by the Panchayat during the year 1939-40 shows the right, title and possession of the father of the plaintiff No.1 over the suit schedule property. After the death of father of the plaintiff No.1, in the year 1964, plaintiff No.1 and his brothers inherited the said property. It is also stated in the plaint that, on account of the family arrangement between plaintiff No.1 and his brothers, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of plaintiff No.1 and therefore, plaintiff No.1 has filed a suit against defendants, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction as well as the mandatory injunction. It is also stated that the Mandala Panchayat has passed a Resolution granting possession and ownership of the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.1 and therefore, declaration has been sought in the suit. It is also stated that plaintiff No.1 has filed OS.No.62 of 1993 before the Civil Judge, Tarikere against defendant No.1, seeking relief of mandatory injunction and the said suit came to be rejected on the ground that plaintiff No.1 therein, has not complied with the provisions contained under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 295 of the KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT , 1993. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and therefore, sought for relief of declaration with regard to the suit schedule property.

4. After service of notice, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the title of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 has contested the matter by stating that the Khata in respect of the subject land was illegally made in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and thereafter, the same was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, who intervened and rectified the records by removing the plaintiffs’ name from the Khata and the same was rectified. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that, the claim made by the plaintiffs is based on the revenue records and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The notice issued to defendant No.2 was served and he remained absent and accordingly placed ex-parte.

6. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has formulated the issues and additional issues for its consideration.

7. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined 03 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and produced 18 documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Defendants have examined 01 witness as DW.1 and produced 9 documents and same were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9.

8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 24.02.2004, decreed the suit holding that, plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has filed RA.No.78 of 2013 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.74 of 1995. Being aggrieved by the sa