Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondent.

The appellant is the plaintiff before the trial

Court and sought for an order of declaration to declare the

plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule

property. It is the claim of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is

a widow belonging to a Schedule Caste. The defendant

Nos.1 and 2 are the revenue authorities, defendant Nos.3

and 4 are the Survey authorities, defendant No.5 is the

City Corporation authority of Ballary. The claim made by

- 3 -

the plaintiff that, she is the absolute owner and in

possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property

bearing T.S. No.656/1, measuring 2.36.1 acre and

T.S.No.656/2 measuring 5.8 cents of Ballary. The plaintiff

acquired the same under the registered Gift Deed dated

30.10.2019 executed by her mother-in-law. It is the claim

that, plaintiff9s husband9s grandfather Sri. Durgappa was

the owner of the plaint schedule property. The suit

property was standing in the name of Sri. Durgappa in the

city survey records, Ballari and also in the city municipal

records of Ballari as he had purchased the same from his

vendors. The sale deed of Sri. Durgappa was misplaced

and he died long back 48 years ago and his wife also died

in the year 1982. The plaintiff9s mother-in-law Smt.

S.Nagamma had executed the registered gift deed and the

plaintiff is the absolute owner and hence, inter alia he has

sought for temporary injunction against the defendants to

restrain them from interfering with the possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said

application was resisted by the defendants by filing written

- 4 -

statement and disputed the very claim of the plaintiff that

she is the owner of the property based on the Gift Deed

and contend that, the very executant of the Gift Deed was

not having any right. The trial Court after considering both

oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion

that the plaintiff has not made out any prima-facie case

against the defendants and also it was the contention of

the defendant that the suit schedule property was

acquired according to the Government and they have not

placed any notification or copy of award and no single

piece of material is placed before the Court. It is

contended that, in order to grab the property of the

Government, the husband of the plaintiff by colluding with

the officials tampered the property register maintained by

city corporation and deleted the name of CMC and inserted

the name of Sri. Durgappa. The trial Court after

considering the material available on record, discussing in

paragraph No.14, with regard to the claim of the plaintiff

and in paragraph No.15 comes to the conclusion that the

burden is on the plaintiff to establish her case, the

- 5 -

weakness of the defendant cannot be taken as an

advantage, non production of acquisition notification or

award etc., will be considered only if the plaintiff is able to

discharge her initial burden. Non production of the

documents by the defendant cannot be considered in

favour of the plaintiff. The burden is on the plaintiff to

establish prima-facie case. The plaintiff has withheld the

original deed of Sri. Durgappa, nothing has been placed to

show that how the said property was acquired by

Durgappa and hence, comes to the conclusion that prima-

facie case has not been made out by the plaintiff and

declined to grant any interim order.

Now the counsel appearing for the appellant

would vehemently contend that, the plaintiff has placed

the document of Gift Deed and apart from that, the entries

are made in the survey CTS No.MPR 27/2020.21, wherein,

a noting was made with regard to till 18.02.1982, it was in

the name of Corporation and statement was recorded

subsequently and intimation slip prepared and the entries

are made and also notice was given on 16.01.2021 and

- 6 -

claimant also claims the document of Form No.21 and

photographs are also produced in the appeal and the

counsel based on th