Back
Karnataka High Court
K.Gopala Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Suryanarayana - Respondent
Decided On : 11-19-03
Property Dispute - Ownership - [Khaneshmari No. 258 in khata No. 195/1] - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 54] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title to the suit property based on revenue records and oral evidence. The court also emphasized that mere entries in revenue records cannot be the sole basis for declaring title to immovable property. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit to declare ownership of a property and obtain a perpetual injunction against the defendant. They claimed that the property was gifted to the plaintiffs' mother and subsequently transferred to them. The defendant denied the gift and claimed ownership of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title to the suit property based on the evidence presented. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs proved their title and lawful possession of the property, and whether the judgment and decree of the trial court were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proving ownership rested on the plaintiffs, and they failed to establish their title based on the evidence presented. The court emphasized that mere entries in revenue records cannot be the sole basis for declaring title to immovable property.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaint averments, one Neela Shetty son of Chikka Munisetty was the owner of the suit schedule property and that he gifted the property in the year 1975 in favour of the plaintiffs mother Pillamma and thereafter khata was changed in the name of Pillamma and that at present Khaneshmari number stands in the name of Pillamma. During the life time of Pillamma she was paying taxes to the plaint schedule property and that she had also obtained license from the village panchayat in order to put up a construction on the schedule property and that Pillamma died on 16. 12. 1983 leaving behind her the plaintiffs and others as sole legal heirs. When the plaintiffs collected the building materials to construct the building, defendant made an attempt to interfere with the possession of the suit property. Therefore, plaintiffs filed a suit initially for judgment and decree of perpetual injunction, later on converted the same into one for declaration of title.
( 3 ) DEFENDANT filed a detailed written statement denying the rights of Neela Setty in gifting the property to the plaintiffs mother Pillamma and he has also denied granting of license by the village panchayat in favour of Pillamma and even if such license was granted to her, same has been concocted one. According to him, plaintiffs by giving false Khaneshmari number is trying to lay claim on his property. Khaneshmari No. 259 in khata No. 97/a which was standing in the name of his father Krishna Reddy and that in a family partition Khaneshmari No. 229 present No. 259 fell to the share of the defendant in a memorandum of partition drawn on 5. 6. 1969 and that he continued to be in possession of the property and that he has also laid foundation in order to put up construction on the property. He has denied that the plaintiffs mother having any property next to his property bearing Khaneshmari No. 259. According to him, by concocting the revenue records plaintiffs are making an attempt to claim defendants property. Defendant also contended that the plaintiffs have no title or possession in respect of the property in question and that the defendant is enjoying his property bearing No. 259 out of which plaintiffs are laying claim by showing different boundaries as plaint schedule property.
( 4 ) BASED on the above pleadings, trial court framed the following issues:1. Does plaintiffs prove her lawful possession of the suit property and as on the date of suit? 2. Has plaintiff given correct and proper description of the suit and does property as per its description given in the plaint exists? 3. Is the suit for mere injunction without plaintiff seeking declaration of the title maintainable in view of the contentions of the defendant in para-5 of the written statement? 4. Is the suit the result of collusion between plaintiff and her relations who own khaneshumari No. 258, khata No. 195/1? 5. Does plaintiff prove that he had a right to commence construction on the suit property and while doing so was interfered with unlawfully by the defendant? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to the injunction sought for? 7. To what other relief or reliefs is plaintiff entitled to? 8. What decree or order? addl. Issues: 9. Whether the plaintiff proves his title as owner of the suit schedule property? 10. Whether the court fee paid is not sufficient?
( 5 ) THEREAFTER, 1st plaintiff has been examined as PW-1. One Palani
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
