Statutory presumption of ownership from revenue records under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot override actual title deeds or admissions of non-possession in a suit for permanent injunction.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.9.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.12/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2004 PASSED IN O.S.No.258/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) HOLALKERE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gurudath V.R., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Spoorthy Hegde N., counsel for the respondent.

2. Present second appeal came to be admitted at the first instance on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit and the appeal by recording perverse findings?”

3. Later on the application filed by the petitioner, two more substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court as under by Order dated 07.04.2026:

“(i) Whether both the Courts right in law in not drawing statutory presumption as provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in respect of the entries made in the revenue records while passing the impugned judgment and decree?

(ii) Whether both the Courts right in law in disbelieving the entries made in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.8 though there is no contrary evidence on record in respect of the entries?”

4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4.1. Appellant being the plaintiff, filed a suit for bare junction in respect of the following property hereinafter referred to as suit property.

“Dry and irrigated land bearing Sy.Nos.42/1, 44/1, 44/2 and 44/3 totally measuring 2.39 guntas situated in Arasanaghatta, Kasaba Hobli, Holalkere Taluk and commonly bounded by:

East : Gudihindala Basappa

West : Govt. Cart Track

North : Rajakaluve

South : -do

4.2. Appellant claimed right over the suit property by virtue of a sale deed executed by holder of the land based on the khata vide Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 in different survey numbers, totally to the extent of 3 acres 12 guntas by the husband of the plaintiff. Later on after the death of the husband of the plaintiff, for the year 1985-86, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1992-93 the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the plaintiff.

4.3. In the meantime, there was a sale made by the husband of the plaintiff in favour of Borappa S/o Palaiah and Yele Eshwarappa S/o Giriyappa on 16.06.1958 from whom Hanumanthappa has purchased the schedule land on 30.07.1964 to the extent of about 36 guntas, (lands were purchased in terms of yards) revenue entries were mutated in the name of Hanumanthappa to the extent of the purchase made by him.

4.4. Hanumanthappa said to have executed a registered Will in the name of defendant No.4 and thereby defendant No.4 became the owner of the property.

4.5. Admittedly, plaintiff did not mention the sale executed by her husband in favour of Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa who inturn sold the same land to Hanumanthappa and filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the scheduled property, claiming that she is in possession of the property.

5. Pursuant to the suit summons defendants entered appearance denying the plaint averments and stated that Hanumanthappa purchased the property from Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa who had purc