- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7188 OF 2009 (INJ) BETWEEN: SHIVAKUMAR S/O CHANNABASAVA REDDY AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: VILLAGE KODIS, TQ: SEDAM, GULBARGA DISTRICT – 585 103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKARARRAO S/O SRIPADRAO AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: HADBAL, TQ: YADGIR, DIST: GULBARGA – 585 103. SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1a. SARASWATI W/O LATE SHANKARARAO, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Amendment as per order dated 27.11.2024 Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 1b. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE VITHALRAO, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1c. SUMITRA D/O LATE SHANKARARAO, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1d. PRABHAKAR RAO S/O LATE SHANKARARAO, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/O: HADBAL, TQ: YADAGIR, DIST: YADGIR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(D) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.07.2009 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT SEDAM IN R.A.10/07 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.01.2007 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), AND J.M.F.C., SEDAM IN O.S.NO.54/03, CONSEQUENTLY, BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This appeal is arising from the divergent finding in a suit for injunction. The defendant is before this Court. 2. The suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff in respect of property bearing Sy No.9999/PR/1/1 measuring 17 guntas in Habal(T) village of Sedam taluk is dismissed. 3. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the said property. The details as to flow of title relating to the suit property is not forthcoming in the plaint. The plaintiff also claimed that sketch relating to the suit property is also annexed with the plaint. The defendant contested the suit disputing the plaintiff’s ownership as well as possession. 4. The defendant based his defence on the unregistered sale deed dated 10.05.1970, said to have been executed by Sarswatibai in favour of Neelamma - mother of the defendant. Since then, the defendant claims - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 to be in possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that, the plaintiff's title is not established and possession is not established. 5. The Trial Court accepted the defence based on the unregistered sale deed dated 10.05.1970 and concluded that the defendant is in the possession of the property. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, plaintiff filed First Appeal in R.A. No.10/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sedam. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and consequently decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant is before this Court. 7. This Court on 18.06.2010, admitted the appeal to consider the following question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without properly considering Ex.D13 and oral evidence - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 adduced on behalf of the appellant and the admission of the plaintiff.” 8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant would submit that the possession of the defendant is very much established under the unregistered sale deed dated 10.05.1970 executed by Sarswatibai - the grandmother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff made a claim that he is the grandson of Sarswatibai, but the fact is that he is the son of Sarswathibai. Name of the plaintiff is entered in the property records for the first time in the year 2002 on the premise that he is the son of Sarswatibai which is again incorrect. The property is no longer the agricultural land as such there cannot be any entry in the record of right. Without the plaintiff establishing his title and possession, the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the well- reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 9. Learned counsel for the appearing for the plaintiff/respondent on the other hand would contend that the unregistered sale deed dated 10.05.1970 is inadmissible in evidence and the recital relating to possession being one of the main purposes of the sale deed, the document cannot be looked to determine the question of possession and the document being inadmissible, the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that the defendant is unable to establish the possession. 10. It is further urged that the relationship of the plaintiff as the grandson of Sarswatibai is very much established. Merely because in the property records the plaintiff is shown as the son of Saraswathi Bai, it does not take away the right of the plaintiff who is the grandson of Sarswathibai, as plaintiff’s mother – Manikabai has expired. The plaintiff is the successor of Sarswatibai’s property through his mother – Manikabai who is no more. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 11. The First Appellate Court has noticed these aspects and rightly granted a decree for injunction and the defendant has not established either the title or possession. Even according to the version of the defendant, the property originally belonged to Sarswatibai and there is no valid transfer of title from Sarswatibai in favour of the defendant and applying the principle that the possession follows the title, the First Appellate has rightly held that the defendant is not in possession and the plaintiff being the owner is entitled to relief of injunction. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the defendants are not the descendants of Saraswati Bai who admittedly was the owner of property bearing No.9999/PR/1/1 of Habal (T) Village, Sedam Taluk. 13. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the grandson of Saraswati Bai. No other person has made a claim under Saraswati Bai as legal heir. The defendant makes a claim under unregistered sale deed said to have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 been executed by Saraswati Bai on 10.05.1970. Based on the said sale deed, no entry is made in the property records. 14. Even if the unregistered sale deed in the name of the defendant is referred to, it only refers to Sy.No.1/1 and not the suit property. It is further noticed that the alleged sale deed is not proved in accordance with law as the person who is allegedly aware of the contents of the sale deed is examined, however, the contradictions in the evidence of said witness are noticed by the First Appellate Court to disbelieve his statement. Under the circumstances, it is urged that the appellant has not made out any case to prove that he is in possession of the property. 15. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 16. The suit property is the property bearing Sy.No.9999/PR/1/1. The plaintiff who has to substantiate the said contention has produced the record of right as on the date of filing of the suit. The record of right stands in the name of the plaintiff. Though, it is urged that the record of right is based on the mutation entry which is certified stating the plaintiff as the son of Saraswati Bai, the admitted factual possession is that the plaintiff is grandson of Saraswati Bai. The defendants do not dispute the right of Saraswati Bai. Defendants are not the legal representatives of the deceased Saraswati Bai. Plaintiff happens to be the sole legal heir of his mother-Manika Bai who is the sole legal heir of Saraswati Bai. Defendants claim right over the property on the basis of sale deed said to have been executed by Saraswati Bai. The sale deed is inadmissible in evidence as it is admittedly unregistered. Even for the sake of collateral purpose, if it is referred to the sale deed, it only refers to Sy.No.1/1 and not Sy.No.9999/PR/1/1. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 17. Though learned counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff’s possession is not established, considering the fact the entry in the record of right marked at Ex.P.1 is in the name of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is the sole legal descendant claiming under Saraswati Bai- the original owner, this Court has to take a view that possession follows title. 18. To substantiate the contention that defendant is in possession, no document is produced. As already noticed, the unregistered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence and it refers to Sy.No.1/1 and not the suit property. The remaining records viz., Exs.D2 to D8 are relating to the Property Tax Register pertaining to the property bearing No.4/51. Said property is not the suit property. On what basis the defendant’s name is entered in the said Property Tax Register is not forthcoming. 19. It is settled position of law that the Property Tax Register does not confer any right over the property. Ex.D.9 is the copy of the Record of Right of Sy.No.1/1 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 standing in the name of Saraswati Bai from 1983 to 1988. If at all the possession was transferred under the alleged sale deed dated 10.05.1970, name of Saraswati Bai would not have continued in Column Nos.9 and 12 of RTC bearing Sy.No.1/1. 20. Ex.D.12 is the RTC of the suit property which is standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.D.13, as already noticed is the sale deed which is inadmissible in evidence. Ex.D.14 is the proposed building sought to be constructed. There is nothing in Ex.D.14 to indicate that this is pertaining to the suit property. Ex.D.10 is the RTC of Sy.No.1/1 standing in the name of Saraswati Bai for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 which also reveals that Saraswati Bai was the person in possession as the owner. None of the documents produced by the defendants would reveal the name of the defendant as the person in possession of Sy.No.9999/PR/1 of the suit property. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1974 RSA No. 7188 of 2009 21. Under the circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE THM & BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42