Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41539

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. V SRISHANANDA, J
KHALEEL S/O LATE SABJAN SAB – Appellant
Versus
E SHIVAMURTHY HIGH COURT OF S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1347 OF 2022 | R.A.No.68/2018 | O.S.No.33/2013

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI VINAYA KEERTHI FOR SMT.SHRUTHI.R.P
For the Respondents: SRI B K MANJUNATH

Ownership must be substantiated by credible documentary evidence; mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish title against documented claims.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Challenge to the decree of the First Appellate Court reversing the Trial Court's decision - Plaintiff's claim established through various documentary evidences including revenue records - Defendants failed to substantiate their ownership or possession contrary to plaintiff's established titles - The suppression of documents and lack of counterclaims by the defendants weakened their position. (Paras 2 - 24)

(B) Establishment of Title - Revenue entries may not take precedence over established title, especially when dispute arises over possession and ownership based on documentation rather than mere entries - The court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining rightful ownership. (Paras 18 - 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the decision of the First Appellate Court, which had reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit claiming ownership of certain agricultural land based on historical claims and documented evidence of title, despite the defendants asserting rights based on revenue entries.

Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of ownership, including historical documentation and revenue records, while the defendants could not substantiate their counterclaims nor produced responsive documentation of their ownership.

Issues: The primary issues centered on whether the plaintiff adequately proved ownership and possession, the validity of the documentation presented, and the relevance of defendants’ claims based on purely revenue entries without substantive proof of title.

Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that ownership established through documentary evidence, including historical revenue documents, overrides the defendants' claims based solely on more recent entries, especially in the absence of a counterclaim. The court underscored that a trial dismissal must not overlook prevailing title conditions.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. ownership dispute over the suit property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's evaluation of the evidence and previous judgments. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. arguments for appellants challenging lower court judgment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. principles on how title vs. revenue entries interact. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. final order to dismiss the appeal. (Para 23)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Vinaya Keerthi, advocate for Smt.Shruthi R.P, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the appellants in the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.68/2018 dated 21.07.2022 on the file of the Spl. II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.33/2013 dated 13.07.2018 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the following property, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

“The areca nut garden land measuring 2 acres and 03 guntas in the Sy.No.81/1P1 of Hulluru village, Hireguntanur Hobli, in Chitradurga taluk and bounded by:

East : Land of late Eshwarappa, West : Land of Hanumanthappa, North : Land of Rudrappa, South : Land of Chigaterappa”.

3. Facts of the case in brief that are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property by contending that he is the owner of the suit property in view of the fact that he got the property from common propositus viz., Chigaterappa who died about 5 to 6 decades earlier.

3.2 Said Chigaterappa had three sons viz., Hanumanthappa, Narappa and Nanjappa. Among them, Hanumanthappa had two sons viz., Basappa and Eshwarappa. Basappa died leaving behind his wife and children who are arraigned as defendant Nos.5 to 10 in the suit.

3.3 Eshwarappa also died on 12.02.2013 leaving behind his three sons viz., Umapathi, Hanumanthappa who are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit and Shivamurthy who is the plaintiff.

3.4 Suit property bearing Sy.No.81/1 totally measuring 6 acres 25 guntas and initially belonged to one Reddera Bheempaa. Said Reddera Bheemappa and his children viz., Hanumanthappa and others sold the said land on 15.10.1923.

Thereafter, Bheemappa, S/o Rudrappa and Kariyappa, S/o Mahalingappa were in possession of the suit property. After the death of Chigaterappa, his three sons became the owners of the suit property and they were enjoying the suit property jointly.

3.5 When the matter stood thus, second son of Chigaterappa viz., Narappa separated away from the family by taking his share in the suit property. By taking monetary consideration, Narappa relinquished his share in favour of Eshwarappa and Basappa. The said relinquishment deed is dated 06.01.1939. Thereafter, Basappa, Eshwarappa and Nanjappa were enjoying the suit property.

3.6 Since Narappa died issueless, Basappa, Eshwarappa and Nanjappa executed a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property on 04.01.1941 and 10.01.1959 to a co-operative Bank and obtained loan. The loan was also repaid and suit property measuring 6 acres 12 guntas remained with them.

3.7 When the matter stood thus, defendants, without there being any right, title or interest, only on the basis of the revenue entries started interfering with the suit property which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and denied the plaint averments in toto.

5. They contended that based on the revenue entries, property was mutated in their names and as such they are the owners of the suit property.

6. It is also pertinent to note that even though the defendants claimed that they are the owners of the suit property, there was no counter claim filed by the defendants. So also, no title deed is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41539

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAMR. V SRISHANANDA, JKHALEEL S/O LATE SABJAN SAB – AppellantVersusE SHIVAMURTHY HIGH COURT OF S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA – RespondentREGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1347 OF 2022 | R.A.No.68/2018 | O.S.No.33/2013

Ownership must be substantiated by credible documentary evidence; mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish title against documented claims.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. V SRISHANANDA, J
KHALEEL S/O LATE SABJAN SAB – Appellant
Versus
E SHIVAMURTHY HIGH COURT OF S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1347 OF 2022 | R.A.No.68/2018 | O.S.No.33/2013