In a civil suit for declaration of title, the court must resolve competing claims based on the 'preponderance of probabilities' rather than strict proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially where foundational titles are contested and documentary discrepancies regarding property identification exist.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.4050/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the dismissal decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.4050/2008.

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

Facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking declaration and consequential relief of injunction contending that suit schedule property originally belonged to one Palyada Chinnappa Reddy and upon his demise, devolved upon his legal heirs including the branch represented by the present plaintiffs. It is their specific case that defendant Nos.1 to 3 having no manner of right, title or interest executed an unregistered GPA in favour of defendant No.4, who in-turn executed a registered sale deed on 29.03.2005 in favour of defendant No.5. Plaintiffs contend that said transaction is void and not binding. Plaintiffs while seeking relief of declaration traced title through their ancestor Palyada Chinnappa Reddy. According to the plaintiffs, their ancestor Palyada Chinnappa Reddy converted to Christian and the church granted a site measuring 1 gunta in Sy.No.166/13. Upon his demise, the plaintiffs claim that they being the legal heirs have inherited the property. The plaintiff's assert that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not claiming through the Church and are independently asserting title based on a partition deed. However, defendants have no document to substantiate that the Church had granted the present suit schedule property to defendant Nos.1 to 4 who in turn could have sold it to defendant No.5. Present suit is filed alleging that based on registered sale deed obtained by defendant No.5, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and therefore, the present suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction.

The defendant Nos.1 to 4, on receipt of summons, did not choose to contest the suit and accordingly were placed exparte. Defendant No.5 appeared through counsel, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants asserted title based on registered sale deed executed by defendant No.4 and contented that his vendors were allotted the suit schedule property under family partition deed dated 13.06.1942. Defendant No.5 therefore asserted that plaintiffs are not the owners and therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at considerable length and has meticulously perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, as well as the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, would vehemently contend that the very foundation of the defendants’ claim, namely the sale deed dated 29.03.2005 executed in favour of defendant No.5, is fundamentally flawed and does not pertain to the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.166/13 measuring 1 gunta. It is his specific contention that the dimensions reflected in the said sale deed, East-West 50 feet and North-South 25 feet, would cumulatively measure 1,250 sq.ft., which is wholly inconsistent with the extent of 1 gunta claimed by the plaintiffs. On this premise, he would submit that the property described in the impugned sale deed is a non-existent or at least a misdescribed property, thereby rendering the defendants’ claim unsustainable.

Elaborating further, learned counsel would contend that the defendants have utterly failed to substantiate their root of title. He would submit that there is no credible material placed on recor