Plaintiffs in property disputes must prove ownership through documentation; long-standing possession alone doesn't establish title without evidence, as upheld by courts.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to establish ownership and right over property; mere long standing possession does not suffice in absence of title documents. (Paras 4, 10)

(B) Concurrent Findings of Fact - The appellate court does not substitute its view for that of lower courts unless findings are perverse or illegal; doubts must be resolved with reference to established evidentiary standards. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property, asserting ancestral title and long-standing possession, but the defendants contested ownership, asserting that they were in possession of the property. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit for lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim.

Findings of Court:
The courts below found that no documents were presented to establish the plaintiff's title, or contradict the defendants' claims of possession.

Issues: The key issues involved whether the plaintiff had sufficient legal title to the property to maintain a suit for declaration and injunction despite defendants’ possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court indicated that the essential requirement of producing title documentation supersedes mere claims of possession or assertions based on outdated rights. Both courts' judgments were upheld due to the lack of solid evidentiary basis from the plaintiff.

Result: The appeal is dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101124 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ-)

BETWEEN:

1. SHIDDANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANGOUDAPATIL, AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O WARD NO.11, OPP. BUS STAND BILAGI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST BAGALKOT.

1.a LAKSHMI W/O. LATE SHIDANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS 1.b PRABHURAJ PATIL S/O. LATE SHIDANAGOUODA, AGED 50 YEARS

1.3. ANUPAMA W/O. SOMASHEKAR RUDRAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS MANJANNA E 1.4. SANDEEP S/O LATE SHIDANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE R/O WARD NO.11, Digitally OPP. BUS STAND BILAGI, signed by TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

MANJANNA E Date:

2025.01.24 …APPELLANTS

13:12:20 (BY SRI. S.H.MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)

+0530 AND:

GURAPPA S/O SIDDAPPAUKKALI SINCE DEAD, HE HAS NO LEGAL HEIRS.

SANGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPAKALYANI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S

1. SMT. DANAVVA W/O SANGAPPAKALYANI, AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587101.

2. SHRISAIL S/O. SANGAPPA KALYANI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI.

587116.

3. SMT. BORAVVA W/O. IRAPPA KARABANTANAL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: VIJAYAPUR, TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586101.

4. SIDAPPA S/O. SANGAPPAKALYANI, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587101.

5. PRAKASH S/O. SANGAPPA KALYANI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587101.

6. RAVIKUMAR S/O. SANGAPPA KALYANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587101.

7. SMT. BAGIRATHI W/O. AMARAPPA JADI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GANGAVATHI, DIST: RAICHUR – 584111.

8. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA DESHATTI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587101.

9. SIDRAMAYYA S/O. CHANNAYYA,PANCHAKATTI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI,TQ: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587101.

10. SIDDAYYA S/O. VEERAYYA GOTHE, AGE: 88 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIDDESHWAR NAGAR, BILAGI.

TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587101.

11. MALLAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA ANNIGERI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIDDESHWAR NAGAR, BILAGI.

TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587101.

BOMANNA RAMAPPA ANNIGERI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

12. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. BOMMANNAANNIGERI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587101.

13. RAMAPPA S/O. BOMMANNAANNIGERI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587101.

14. SIDRAMAPPA S/O BOMMANNA ANNIGERI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ:BILAGI - 587116.

15. SMT. RENAVVA D/O. BOMMANNA ANNIGERI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JADAR ONI, BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI - 587116.

16. SMT. BAYAVVA D/O. BOMMANNA, ANNIGERI, AGE:45 YEARS, R/O: JADAR ONI BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI - 587116.

17. JAMAPPANNA S/O. KALLOLEPPA KATTIMANI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR SHIDDESHWAR HIGH SCHOOL, BILAGI - 587116. …….RESPONDENTS -------

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.01.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN R.A. NO.159/2009 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.09.2009 PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI IN O.S.NO.99/2005, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2022 in RA No.159/2009 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’) dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2009 in OS No.99/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bilagi (for short, hereinaft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCHE.S.INDIRESH, JSHIDDANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANGOUDAPATIL – AppellantVersusGURAPPA S/O SIDDAPPAUKKALI – RespondentRegular Second Appeal NO. 101124 OF 2022

Plaintiffs in property disputes must prove ownership through documentation; long-standing possession alone doesn't establish title without evidence, as upheld by courts.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
E.S.INDIRESH, J
SHIDDANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANGOUDAPATIL – Appellant
Versus
GURAPPA S/O SIDDAPPAUKKALI – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal NO. 101124 OF 2022