1. Suit for cancellation of revenue entries, declaration of title, and permanent injunction over ancestral properties. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V Srishananda, J.
Smt. Gowramma - Appellant
Versus
Smt Lalithamma - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1594 of 2018 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 02-07-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. T. Prakash, Advocate
For the Appellant :Sri. T. Prakash, Advocate
Long-standing revenue entries, specifically the Record of Rights and Index of Lands, carry presumptive value regarding ownership and possession when no other title documents are produced by either party.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Scope of appellate powers - Property Law - Presumptive value of revenue entries - In the absence of formal title documents, long-standing revenue entries, including the Record of Rights and Index of Lands, are to be preferred and carry presumptive value regarding ownership and possession. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sought cancellation of revenue entries, entry of name as kathedar, and a permanent injunction against defendants regarding several landed properties and a house, asserting absolute ownership through inheritance from ancestors. Defendants contested the claim, asserting possession and ownership based on revenue entries in their names. The Trial Court partially decreed the suit based on a sale deed for specific items but dismissed the rest. On appeal, the First Appellate Court modified the judgment to decree the suit in its entirety, relying on historical revenue records that identified the plaintiff's predecessors.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the revenue extracts produced by the defendants were of recent origin and lacked a clear basis for how the names were entered. In contrast, the plaintiff provided revenue records tracing title back to the ancestors' period, including the Record of Rights and Index of Lands, which were sufficiently old to establish a consistent history of title.
Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of all suit properties based on revenue entries despite the absence of registered title deeds for certain properties.
Ratio Decidendi: Following settled principles of law, when no title documents are placed on record by either party, long-standing revenue entries carry presumptive value and are to be preferred over recent entries. The exercise of appellate powers under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to re-appreciate evidence and decree the suit in toto was correct and required no further interference.
Result: Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenged decreeing of suit in toto based on revenue entries without title documents. Respondents relied on inheritance and long-standing revenue entries. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Long-standing revenue entries are preferred when no document of title is placed by either party. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Long-standing revenue entries have presumptive value when there is no document of title from either party. (Para 10 )
5. Admission declined. Regular Second Appeal dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. What is the presumptive value of long-standing revenue entries in a title dispute?
Long-standing revenue entries are to be preferred having presumptive value when no document of title has been placed on record by either party. (Para 10 )
7. Can a first appellate court re-appreciate evidence and reverse a trial court decree?
Yes, the first appellate court, exercising appellate powers under Section 96 of the CPC, may re-appreciate the same material evidence on record and decreed the suit in toto. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
V Srishananda, J.
1. Heard Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.
2. The present appeal is preferred by the defendants challenging the decreeing of the suit in toto by the First Appellate Court by modifying the judgment of Trial Court in OS No.183/2010, wherein suit was decreed in part.
3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under :
3.1 A suit in OS No.183/2010 came to be filed in respect of the following properties hereinafter referred to as 'suit properties' by contending that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and thus sought for cancellation of the revenue entries directing the concerned revenue authorities to enter the name of the plaintiff as kathedar in respect of the suit properties and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enjoyment of the suit properties.
SCHEDULE
1) The land bearing Sy.No. 45/1, extent 00.11 Guntas, assessed at Rs.00.53p. Situated at Anudi Village, Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded as follows.
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East | Basamma W/o Venkatappa |
| West | Road |
| North | Plaintiffs Property |
| South | Plaintiffs Property |
2) The land bearing Sy.No. 45/3, extent 00.24 Guntas, assessed at Rs.01.13p. Situated at Anudi Village, Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded as follows.
| Direction | Name |
|---|---|
| East | Basamma W/o Venkatappa |
| West | Road |
| North | Nanjamma W/o Basanna |
| South | Gangamma W/o Byalappa |
3) The land bearing Sy.No. 45/13, extent 00.05 Guntas, assessed at Rs.0024p. Situated at Anudi Village. Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded as follows.
| Direction | Name |
|---|---|
| East | Krishnappa |
| West | Plaintiffs Property |
| North | Basamma W/o Venkatappa |
| South | Nanjamma W/o Nanjaiah |
4) The land bearing Sy.No.45/14, extent 00.10 Guntas, assessed at Rs.00.47p. Situated at Anudi Village. Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded as follows.
| Direction | Name |
|---|---|
| East | Road |
| West | Nanjamma W/o Nanjaiah |
| North | Basamma W/o Venkatappa |
| South | Mahadevappa S/o 'Thimmaiah |
5) The land bearing Sy.No. 46/1, extent 01.12 Guntas, assessed at Rs.01.47p. Situated at Anudi Village. Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded as follows.
| Direction | Name/Property |
|---|---|
| East | Kaleel Saheb |
| West | Bheemappa |
| North | Narayana swamy |
| South | Plaintiffs Property |
6) The property bearing Janger No. 63 & Prop. No. 61/86. Situated at Anudi Village, Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded as follows.
| Direction | Location |
|---|---|
| East | Road |
| West | Mylarappa |
| North | Venkatappa |
| South | Road |
3.2 Plaintiffs further contended that suit properties originally belonged to one Bayyanna, who was the common ancestor of the plaintiff, who had a wife by name Eramma. The couple, Bayyanna and Eramma had a son by name Basanna, who was married to Bhadramma.
3.3 As the time passed by, Bayyanna, Basanna and Bhadramma died and only surviving legal representative in the family was Bhadramma.
3.4 After death of the parents, ancestors and parents of the plaintiff, the suit properties devolved on the plaintiff in toto by inheritance. Therefore, plaintiff is the owner of the property and contented that With the assistance of her husband Thimmaiah and children, she is cultivating the suit properties.
3.5 It is also contented that in order to obstruct the enjoyment of the suit properties, on 18.05.2010 defendants started interfering with the suit properties and therefore, sought for the suit relief.
3.6 It is also contented by the plaintiffs that in active collusion with the revenue authorities, defendants without there being any right title or interest concocted the revenue entries in their name and started interfering with the suit properties and thus sought for decreeing the suit.
3.7 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants No.1 and 2 appeared through an advocate and filed written statement; whereas defendant No.3 though engaged an advocate did not choose to contest the suit.
3.8 In the written statement, plaint averments were totally denied and they contended that as per the revenue entries defendants are in
