In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies heavily on the plaintiff to establish ownership through cogent documentary evidence; failure to produce such evidence or to seek the introduction of additional evidence before the appellate court prevents interference with concurrent findings of fact by the High Court.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.136/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.72/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPUR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was the plaintiff in OS No.72/2013, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur, in RA.No.136/2018 dated 01.12.2020, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2018 in O.S.No.72/2013 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkaballapur.

3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of brevity.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that old Survey No.50 was rephoded and assigned a new survey No.362/1. It originally belonged to one Chikkanna, who is the father of the plaintiff, and after the death of Chikkanna, the plaintiff and his brother G.C.Ranganna amicably partitioned the family properties and in that partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff and his brother by name G.C.Ranganna half share each. It is further contended that by virtue of the partition, the revenue entries were mutated. Plaintiff further pleaded that his father, Chikkanna, executed a registered will in favour of his children. As per the will, the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property. He is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. But the revenue records continued in the joint name of him and his brother.

5. It is also pleaded that the brother of the plaintiff has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property, and there is no dispute between the brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has further stated that defendants who have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property started interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession under the guise of having obtained a sale deed and having mutated revenue documents on the basis of the sale deed and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, which led to the plaintiff filing the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants.

6. Upon issuance of the summons to the defendants, defendant No.1 did not appeared. He was placed ex parte. Defendant No.2 appeared and filed a written statement denying the contention of the plaint averments and sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession in respect of suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference?

4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Sadarappa Narasappa and after his demise Chikkamrappa?

5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves the registered sale deed dated 04.01.1969 executed by the father of the 1st defendant?

6. W