In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the lower courts' judgments suffer from perversity or significant illegality. The burden of proof to establish title rests solely on the plaintiff; they cannot succeed by relying on the defendant's alleged weaknesses.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of interference - Appellate court in second appeal cannot reappreciate evidence unless perversity or illegality is demonstrated - Where courts below have provided cogent reasoning, interference is not warranted.

(B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Plaintiff seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction - Burden of proof lies squarely on plaintiff - Plaintiff cannot succeed by relying on weaknesses of defendant’s case.

(C) Evidence - Sale deed - Discrepancy in survey numbers - Where property description (survey number) is at odds with other indicia of identity, and no rectification or cogent proof of boundaries is provided, the court is justified in disbelieving the claim of title.

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding 12 guntas of land, alleging that his grandmother purchased the property but the sale deed erroneously cited a different survey number. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to affirmatively prove title or possession, particularly given the discrepancy in survey numbers and lack of timely rectification.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the plaintiff must stand on the strength of his own evidence. The findings of both lower courts concurrent in dismissing the suit based on failure to prove ownership were found to be legally sound and devoid of perversity.

Issues: 1. Whether the findings of the lower courts were perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence? 2. Whether the plaintiff established his title and possession over the suit schedule property?

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plaintiff fails to establish title through clear documentary evidence or identify the property claimed, especially when seeking declaration based on a sale deed featuring incorrect survey particulars, the court is correct in dismissing the suit. An appellate court exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC is limited and not meant for substituting opinions on facts.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff bears burden of proof in declaratory suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellant arguments regarding boundary primacy vs survey number. (Para 4 , 5)
3. limited scope of section 100 cpc in second appeals. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.11.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.27/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGARA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.11.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.176/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGARA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment & decree rendered by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Nagara in R.A. No.27/2022 dated 3.11.2025, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Nagara, in O.S No. 176/2014 dated 03.11.2022, whereby the learned trial judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of easy understanding.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 Plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the grandson of Smt. Devamma W/o late Kadegowda and his grand-mother - Devamma had purchased suit schedule property from one Sri Appegowda s/o Marigowda, through a registered sale deed dated 20.02.1969, thereby said Appegowda had put Smt. Devamma in possession of the suit schedule property.

3.3 It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 - Shambamma w/o Late Thimmegowda, purchased land in Sy. No.766/1 and 766/2, measuring 1 acre 18 guntas by way of registered sale deed in the year 1968 from one Sri Ramegowda. The 2nd defendant got changed the khata in respect of 766/1 to an extent of 2 acres illegally in the year 1980-1981 by way of mutation and then, khata was changed in the name of 3rd defendant, who is the wife of 2nd defendant. Thereafter, the khata was changed pursuant to the partition deed between the parties and the entire extent of 2 acres in Sy. No.766/1 including 12 guntas of land belonged to the plaintiff, was mutated in the name of the defendants.

3.4 It is also case of the plaintiff that his grand mother has purchased 12 guntas in Survey No. 766/1 by way of a registered sale deed and thereafter she executed a registered Will dated 27.1.1997 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said 12 guntas of land. By oversight the survey number has been wrongly mentioned as Sy. No. 730/2 instead of 766/1, but the boundaries of the land have been correctly mentioned in the registered sale deed.

3.5 It is further case of the plaintiff that his grand mother - Devamma died on 28.09.2006 and from that day, the plaintiff is in a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner, having acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. But the defendants, taking undue advantage of the wrong entry of survey number in the sale deed, has succeeded in getting the entries in the RTC into their name, which is illegal. Accordingly, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants.

3.6 Upon filing the suit, summons was got issued to the defendants. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 though appeared through their counsel, did not file the written statement. Defendant No.4 filed the written statement and contested the matter. Defendant no. 4 took up a plea that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendants, so also there is no relation between the suit schedule property and the plaintiff. The plaintiff is completely unknown person to the defendants and at no point of time, the plaintiff wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22692

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAPradeep Singh Yerur, JVijayakumar – AppellantVersusShambhamma – RespondentREGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2026

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J
Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
Shambhamma – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2026