IMPORTANT POINT
Title Declaratory Suit – It is duty of plaintiffs to produce document of title and Civil Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of revenue records.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 09th January, 2019 passed in Regular Appeal No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Aland (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 07th November, 2016 passed in Original Suit No.203 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.203 of 2009, seeking relief of declaration that the they are the owners in possession of the schedule property stating that the properties are belong to their ancestors. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendants are interfering with the suit schedule properties and as such, the plaintiffs filed suit before the Trial Court.

4. After service of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying the plaint averments. It is the specific contention of the defendants that the entire Survey No.29 belongs to the family of plaintiffs and defendants and after the partition in the family, defendants got half share in the schedule property and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the

Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration.

6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.1 himself was examined PW1 and got marked 11 documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and got marked 12 documents as Exhibits D1 to D12.

7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 07th November, 2016, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiffs filed Regular Appeal No.4 of 2017 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 09th January, 2019, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 07th November, 2016 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.203 of 2009. Being aggrieved same, appellant/plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

8. Heard Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiffs and Sri. Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendants.

9. Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiffs submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record and wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved title and possession in respect of the schedule property, despite the plaintiffs have produced Exhibit P6-Muation and Panchanama to establish their right over the property in question and accordingly, he sought for inference of this Court.

10. Per contra, Sri. Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below.

11. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the finding recorded by the Courts below, the same would indicate that the plaintiffs have not produced the title document to establish their right over the schedule property. It is well establish principle in law that the grant of declaration based on the revenue documents like RTC and Mutation Extracts is to be deprecated and it is duty of the plaintiffs to produce the document of title and the Civil Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of revenue records [See ILR 2012 KAR 4958 and (2014 (2) SCC