An unregistered settlement deed does not confer title to immovable property valued over Rs.100, requiring legal evidence for ownership claims.

and decree dated 19.10.2022 passed in R.A.No.56/2020 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan, and also the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2020 passed in O.S.No.19/2012 by the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna or pass other suitable orders by allowing this appeal with costs throughout in the interest of justice.

This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2020, passed in O.S.No.19/2012, on the file of II Addl.

Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna, ('trial Court' for short), which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 19.10.2022, passed in R.A. No.56/2020, on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna (First Appellate Court).

2. The above suit in O.S.No.19/2012 is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Huchhegowda had four sons, namely Konegowda, Thimmegowda, Dasappa and Huchegowda @ Ayyanna. The first son Konegowda had three children, namely Rajanna, Kondegowda and Thimmegowda (defendant No.1). The second son Thimmegowda had a wife by name Yallamma, but, no issues. The third son Dasappa had three children, namely Chandra, Kondegowda and Venkatesha and fourth son Huchegowda @ Ayyanna had four children, namely Sunanda, Shoba, Sumalatha and Manjunatha H (plaintiff).

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that all the sons of Huchegowda have partitioned the ancestral properties. Since the second son Thimmegowda and his wife Yallamma had no issues, they brought up the plaintiff and treated him as their own son. That since the plaintiff was taking care of Yallamma and Thimmegowda, after the death of husband of Yallamma, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of plaintiff by way of Deed of Settlement dated 01.01.2003. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner thereof.

5. That on 13.08.2003, the plaintiff had given an application to the Tahsildar, Channarayapatna, for change of katha and was under an impression that the katha has been changed. That just about two months prior to the date of filing of the suit, the defendant No.4 started to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property asserting that he has purchased the same from defendant Nos.1 to 3 through registered Sale Deed about three years prior to filing of the suit.

6. That on verification, the plaintiff found that defendant No.1 had concocted Panchayat Palupatti alleged to have been executed by Yallamma in his favour based on which he had obtained revenue entries in his name. That defendants 1 to 3 had executed and registered a Sale Deed dated 26.11.2008 in respect of 5 guntas of suit property. It is further contended that plaintiff has reason to believe that Yallamma's left thumb impression had been forged by defendant No.1 to create deed of partition dated 10.02.2003 in collusion with the witnesses and scribe. Hence, suit for declaration.

7. Defendants 1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that suit property originally belonged to Huchhegowda and in a partition it was allotted to the share of second son Thimmegowda and after death of Thimmegowda, name of his wife Yallamma was entered in the revenue records.

Yallamma had no issues and she brought up defendant No.1 as her son. Defendant No.1 had taken care of Yallamma till her demise. She had executed a Panchayath Palupatti on 10.02.2003 and allotted the suit property to defendant No.1. Later she died on 06.06.2004. That on the basis of the said Palupatti, defendant No.1 got his name entered in the revenue records. Plaintiff filed the