In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests entirely on the plaintiffs to establish their ownership through valid title documents; the weakness of the defendant's case cannot be utilized to grant relief, and revenue records alone do not constitute proof of title.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2012 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.55 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.111 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 10th December, 2012 passed in Regular Appeal No.55 of 2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chikkamagaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2011 passed in Original Suit No.111 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of plaintiffs filed for declaration and permanent injunction came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that, the plaintiff No.1 inherited 4 acre 35 guntas of land in Survey No.10 of Mudigere Village after the death of his father Basappa Shetty. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 sold 1 acre 35 guntas of land in favour of one Bethany Congregations as per registered Sale Deed dated 09th January, 1956 and he gave consent for acquisition of 20 guntas of land for the purpose of construction of B.D.O. Office at Mudigere in the aforementioned land. It is also stated that, 1 acre of the land was given to one Srikantaswamy by the plaintiff No.1 in the aforementioned land. Accordingly, as there are several sub-divisions in the above said land, a new Survey No.10/1Ap was given to the remaining extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. It is averred that, a registered Partition Deed dated 28th June, 1993 was executed in the family of the plaintiffs and as such, suit schedule property along with other properties had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

4. It is further contended in the plaint that the defendant-Institution filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Mudigere and occupancy right was granted in favour of the defendant-Institution. It is the case of plaintiffs that the defendant being a non-agricultural institution has no authority to secure occupancy right under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is also stated that the plaintiff No.1 and the deceased plaintiff No.2 had sold an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the defendant as per the registered Sale Deed dated 09th January, 1956 and retained the property bearing Survey No.10/1Ap which is the suit schedule property in the suit, claiming declaratory relief. It is also stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkamgaluru, by order dated 26th February, 2008, confirmed the possession to an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas in land bearing S