Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25098

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J
C Raju – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmamma – Respondent
RFA No. 1516 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Reuben Jacob, Devaiah M P
For the Respondents: G Chandrashekaraiah, Keshava Murthy B

In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests entirely on the plaintiff to establish their own title and the predecessor's title; failure to substantiate the chain of ownership with reliable records and valid registration of conveyance documents necessitates the dismissal of the claim.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Suit for declaration and injunction - Dismissal of suit - Appeal - Burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to establish title - Failure to prove vendor’s title - Failure to produce evidence of inheritance or retained property by predecessor-in-interest. (Paras 21, 23, 46, 52)

(B) Property Law - Sale Deed validity - Registered sale deeds in favour of defendants supported by revenue records (khata) versus unclear title of plaintiff's vendors - Admissibility of Power of Attorney - A power of attorney coupled with interest requires registration when it effectively conveys title. (Paras 49, 50, 51)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding properties in Survey No. 3/3, claiming inheritance through a chain of title beginning with one Tirupathappa. The respondents, who had purchased the suit properties from the legal heirs of the original owner's second wife, contended that Tirupathappa had disposed of all sites during his lifetime. The Trial Court dismissed the suit finding the plaintiff failed to establish his title or any right over the suit properties.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff offered no concrete evidence, such as khata or encumbrance certificates, to show his vendors inherited the properties. Conversely, the defendants produced records showing the property stood in their vendors' names. Furthermore, the court found the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff’s vendors to be legally deficient as it lacked registration despite conveying an interest in the property.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved his title and possession to the suit properties and whether the sale deeds in favour of the defendants were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for declaration of title, the burden is strictly on the plaintiff to establish ownership through clear documentation. The court observed that failure to produce evidence of property holding, coupled with the absence of proof regarding the devolution of title from the alleged predecessor, warrants dismissal of the suit.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of suit and background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
2. contentions regarding burden of proof and title documentation. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
3. court's analysis of document chain and failure of proof. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.11278/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05TH MARCH, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal is under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff whose suit in O.S No.11278/2006 for declaration and injunction is dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 is in appeal.

2. The suit is filed in respect of immovable properties described as sites bearing No.3, 4 and 5, V.P.Khata No.109 and 109/A, having Assessment No.3/3, situated at Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West: 95 feet and North-South: 45 feet, totally measuring 4275 square feet with a shed and a compound wall built around it. The boundaries are described as under:

East : Property No.6

West: Property No.2

North :Road

South :Sterling Apartments property

3. The plaintiff seeks declaration that the registered sale deed dated 24.09.2004 executed by defendants No.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.10-GPA holder of defendants No.8 and 9 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. In addition, the plaintiff also seeks declaration of title to declare him as the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also sought injunction against the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and a restraint order against defendant No.10 from alienating the suit schedule properties.

5. This case was heard along with RFAs No.1514/2018, 1515/2018, 1517/2018, 1518/2018, 1519/2018 and 1520/2018. During the hearing, the counsel appearing for both sides submitted that, certain transactions evidenced in the registered sale deeds filed in RFA No.1514/2018 arising from O.S No.11276/2006 are not in dispute. Thus, while narrating the facts of the case, the Court has also taken note of the transactions evidenced in O.S No.11276/2006, as the parties to the proceeding are claiming right over the sites formed in Sy.No.3/3 in all the cases referred to above.

6. The property bearing Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in Lottegollahalli Village originally belonged to Hanumanthappa. Said Hanumanthappa had two wives namely; Byamma and Thayamma. It appears that both marriages are valid and from both wives, Hanumanthappa had children and among them, a son from first wife Byamma was named as Narasimhaiah and a son from second wife Thayamma was also named as Narasimhaiah.

7. The plaintiff claims that there was an oral partition in the family during lifetime of Hanumanthappa and in the said oral partition, Narasimhaiah son of Hanumanthappa from first wife Byamma was allotted 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Survey No.3/3. The plaintiff claims that said 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Survey No.3/3 was later sold by Narasimhaiah-son of Byamma to Muniswamappa under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1956.

8. The plaintiff claims that Muniswamappa sold Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas to one Ranganayakamma under a registered sale deed 07.03.1957 and Ranganayakamma in turn sold the land to Narasimhaiah, the son from second wife Thayamma under a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1963.

9. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25098

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAnant Ramanath Hegde, JC Raju – AppellantVersusLakshmamma – RespondentRFA No. 1516 of 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J
C Raju – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmamma – Respondent
RFA No. 1516 of 2018