- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200511 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE NAGOJI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. RANGANNA S/O LATE NAGOJI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. RAVI S/O LATE NAGOJI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SURESH S/O LATE NAGOJI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. MALLARAYA S/O LATE RANGANNA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. SHIVAJI S/O LATE RANGANNA, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 AGE: 55 YEARS, 7. HANUMANTHRAYA S/O LATE RANGANNA, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O: ARYARARA-DODDI, DEVADURGA, DISTRICT RAICHUR – 584 111. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI A.M.NAGRAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANJEEV KUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KISTAMMA W/O LATE CHANDANNA, AGE: 67 YEARS, R/O: ARYARA-DODDI, DEVADURGA, NOW R/O: SAROJINI ONI, DEVADURGA – 584 111. 2. SRINIVAS S/O LATE CHANDANNA, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O: ARYARA-DODDI, DEVADURGA, NOW R/O: SAROJINI ONI, DEVADURGA – 584 111. 3. SRIDHAR S/O LATE CHANDANNA, AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O: ARYARA-DODDI, DEVADURGA, NOW R/O: SAROJINI ONI, DEVADURGA – 584 111. 4. RAJINIKANTH W/O LATE CHANDANNA, AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O: ARYARA-DODDI, DEVADURGA, NOW R/O: SAROJINI ONI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 DEVADURGA – 584 111. 5. VENKATESH S/O VENKAPPA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALAPPANA-TADA K, IRABAGERA VILLAGE, TALUKA DEVADURGA, DISTRICT RAICHUR – 584 111. 6. THE MANAGER, PRAGATI KRISHNA GRAMINA BANK BRANCH, DEVADURGA – 584 111. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN R.A.NO.15/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2019, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DEVADURGA, IN O.S.NO.44/2017, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction and also for correction of entry in the record of rights. The suit is dismissed. The plaintiffs filed an appeal. The appeal is also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the plaintiffs are in Second Appeal. 3. The suit property measures 8 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.580/C, out of the total extent of 8 acres 32 guntas at Devadurga Village, Taluk:Devadurga, District:Raichur. 4. The averments in the plaint would reveal that one Nagoji son of Ranganna had two sons by name - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 Ranganna and Chandanna. The suit is filed by the branch of Ranganna against the branch of Chandanna. 5. The plaintiffs claimed title over the said property based on the decree in O.S.No.74/1/1964 before the Munsiff Court, Devadurga. The plaintiffs contend that said suit was filed in respect of land bearing Sy.No.580 measuring 35 acres 9 guntas in Devadurga. Admittedly, the said suit is filed by Ranganna along with one more person by name Rayappa son of Basappa. One Gundappa was the defendant in the said suit. 6. Aforementioned suit in O.S.No.74/1/1964 is decreed on 28.02.1964. In terms of the decree, the defendant in the said suit was restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering the plaintiffs in the said suit in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.580 measuring 35 acres 9 guntas. 7. It is stated that vide mutation entry No.98 certified on 20.02.1970, the land has been mutated in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 name of Rayappa son of Basappa to the extent of 17 acres 24 guntas. It is further stated 8 acres 33 guntas were mutated in favour of Ranganna. And remaining 8 acres 32 guntas were mutated in the name of Chandanna. The suit is filed on the premise that the property does not belong to Chandanna and mutation entry No.51 dated 25.02.1972 recording the name of Chandanna is illegal. 8. The plaintiffs claim that on coming to know about the illegal entry in the name of Chandanna, his brother Ranganna requested Chandanna to give consent to delete his name from the property records and on 07.02.1998, mutation No.39 is certified recording the statement of Chandanna who allegedly agreed to delete his name. 9. The plaintiffs claim that despite mutation entry No.39, name of Nagoji illegally continued and later defendants No.2 to 4 vide mutation entry No.30 dated 26.12.2000 got their name entered in the property records to the extent of 8 acres 12 guntas and remaining 20 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 guntas was entered in the name of Nagoji, the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 4. It is further stated that later the land is renumbered as Sy.No.580/C and defendants have no right over said Sy.No.580/C which is described as the suit property. 10. Defendants contested the suit. Defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ claim relating to the title and possession over the suit property. However, the defendants have admitted the relationship pleaded in the plaint. 11. Defendants took a stand that Ranganna and Chandanna were living jointly and partition took place in the year 1972 and in the said partition, the suit land was allotted to the share of Chandanna and after the demise of Chandanna, defendants succeeded to the estate of Chandanna. It is further stated that originally 17 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.580 was jointly cultivated by the joint family of Ranganna and Chandanna and Ranganna was the Kartha of the family. It is stated that he filed suit along - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 with Rayappa against Gundapa in respect of total extent of 35 acres 9 guntas. It is further stated that mutation No.51 dated 25.02.1972 is based on the partition between Ranganna and Chandanna and after the demise of Chandanna, defendants succeeded the suit property. It is further stated that during the life time of Chandanna, Nagoji son of Ranganna i.e., father of plaintiffs No.2 to 5 and husband of plaintiff No.1 had purchased 20 guntas out of 8 acres 32 guntas, but the deed was not registered and name of Nagoji son of Ranganna was entered in the property records vide mutation No.39 dated 07.02.1998 to the extent of 20 guntas and remaining extent of 8 acres 12 guntas continued in the name of Chandanna. It is further stated that in the year 2000, defendants No.2 to 4 partitioned the property standing in the name of Chandanna and to this effect, mutation entry No.30 is certified on 26.12.2000. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs had the knowledge of mutation in the name of Chandanna since 1972 itself. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 12. The Trial Court based on the records placed before it has concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the title and noticing the entry in the record of rights in the name of the defendants since 1972, concluded that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and consequently the suit is dismissed. The Trial Court also noticed that the decree in O.S.No.74/1/1964 does not disclose the source of title in favour of Ranganna but only refers to possession more than 12 years by Ranganna and Rayappa. The Trial Court concluded that Nagoji son of Ranganna i.e., the father of plaintiff Ranganna in O.S.No.74/1/1964 was cultivating the property and accordingly, concluded that the property belongs to Ranganna as well as Chandanna. 13. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/ appellants submits as under: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 The title and possession of the plaintiffs is very much confirmed in terms of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.74/1/1964 before Munsiff Court, Devadurga. None has questioned the aforementioned judgment and decree. The said judgment and decree have attained finality. The Court has recognised the plaintiffs’ possession over the property and plaintiffs are in possession of the property 12 years prior to 1964 and this fact itself would suggest that the plaintiffs’ predecessor Ranganna was the owner of the property and accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title and injunction against the defendants who have no title and possession of the property. In view of the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.74/1/1964 on the file of Munsiff Court, Devadurga, the Trial Court could not have dismissed the suit is the submission. 15. The First Appellate Court also committed same error in not noticing the title and possession recognised in O.S.No.74/1/1964 on the file of Munsiff Court, Devadurga is the submission on behalf of the appellants. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 16. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the defendants have no title and interest over the suit property. The entry in record of rights since 1972 till the date of filing the suit is without any basis. The father of the defendants namely Ranganna had made a statement in the year 1998 to delete his name from the property records and consequently, mutation entry No.39 is certified on 07.02.1998, however, wrongly the names of the defendants continued in the property records. Such erroneous entry in the property records does not establish title and possession of the defendants is the submission. 17. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that assuming that the plaintiffs’ title is not established over the property, the suit should have been decreed for injunction as the plaintiffs’ have better claim than the defendants. 18. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 19. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not produced any records to establish their title other than the decree in O.S.No.74/1/1964. The decree in O.S.No.74/1/1964 marked at Ex.P24 is the decree for injunction against 3rd party who is not a party to the present proceeding. Based on the said decree, the plaintiffs are claiming title over the property. 20. It is relevant to note that the decree does not confer any title. The decree only recognises the title, if it is already in existence. The Trial Court has noted that the decree for injunction in the aforementioned suit in O.S.No.74/1/1964 does not recognise or record the flow of title in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suit. It only recognised the possession of the plaintiffs in the said suit 12 years prior to the suit which was filed in 1964. 21. There is no dispute that Ranganna, one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.74/1/1964 is the brother of Chandanna and both are children of Nagoji. It is also noticed that the decree was in respect of 35 acres 9 guntas and one more - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 person by name Rayappa was also co-plaintiff along with Ranganna. Later, 17 acres 24 guntas were mutated in the name of Rayappa and said entry is not called in question. Two years later, i.e., on 25.02.1972, one more mutation was effected recording the name of Chandanna to the extent of 8 acres 32 guntas and remaining 8 acres 32 guntas were recorded in the name of Ranganna. This entry No.51 certified in 1972 is not questioned at all till the filing of the suit in the year 2017. 22. The Trial Court has considered the oral evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and on appreciation of the same, has concluded that the said witnesses are ignorant about the nature of the title over the property. 23. The Trial Court has attached importance to mutation entry No.51 dated 25.02.1972 marked at Ex.D1 to hold that the said entry is not questioned till filing of the suit in the year 2017 and accordingly, concluded that defendants are the owners of the suit property. Since the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 plaintiffs claimed the declaration of title over the property, the Trial Court concluded that it is not possible to hold that only Ranganna was cultivating the suit property 12 years prior to 1964. 24. The First Appellate Court also noticed that Ex.P19-the mutation of 1972 is not disputed. The First Appellate Court also noticed that Ranganna did not oppose certification of mutation in favour of his brother Chandanna in respect of 8 acres 32 guntas. The First Appellate Court also noticed that after the death of Chandanna, defendants No.2 to 4 who are children of Chandanna got their names entered as successors of Chandanna to the extent of 8 acres 12 guntas and remaining 20 guntas were recorded in the name of Nagoji, the husband of plaintiff No.1. 25. Admittedly, the defendants are not parties to the previous proceeding in O.S.No.74/1/1964. Hence, the decree in the said suit cannot be used against the defendants to contend that the said decree recognises - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 exclusive title of the plaintiffs in the said suit. However, the defendants also admit the said decree and contend that Ranganna, one of the plaintiffs in the said suit was acting as the family manager of the joint family comprising his brother Chandanna. The fact that Chandanna, the brother of Ranganna is not in dispute. The oral partition among the joint family members is well recognised among Hindus. The mutation recording partition between Chandanna and Ranganna is certified way back in 1972. Thereafter, further mutations have taken place in respect of the suit property after the death of Chandanna. Under these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to believe that the plaintiffs were not aware of the mutation of 1972. 26. The plaintiffs made an attempt to establish the title based on the mutation entry No.39 which is certified on 07.02.1998 based on the statement said to have been made by Chandanna, the predecessor of the defendants. Both the Courts have held that the said entry is only in respect of 20 guntas in Sy.No.580/C and not in respect of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 entire 8 acres 32 guntas. Under these circumstances, both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the property. 27. The next question is whether the plaintiffs are able to establish their possession. Plaintiffs contend that their predecessor was in possession of the property prior to 1964 and later they are in possession. The records produced by the plaintiffs do not indicate that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the property after 1972. However, the records produced by the defendants i.e., the record of rights since 1972 would establish that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. 28. Under these circumstances, both the Courts below have attached presumption to the entries in the record of righst which was standing since 1972. The long standing entries in the record of rights carry presumption unless rebutted. No evidence is produced before the Court to rebut the evidence arising from the long standing entry - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2400 RSA No. 200511 of 2024 in the record of rights which is based on oral partition between two brothers. 29. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law would arise. 30. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 31. Since the appeal is dismissed on merit, the application for condonation of delay is also rejected. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33