- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1247 OF 2016 (DEC) BETWEEN: SMT. GADIGI SIDDALINGAVVA W/O BHARAMANAGOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S GADIGI BASAVARAJA, S/O BHARAMANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUNDAGATHI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN-583 131. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.R. DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC:AGRI. 2. NAGAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC:AGRI. 3. NINGAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC:AGRI. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 4. BASAVARAJA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC:AGRI. 5. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC:AGRI. ALL R/O GUNDAGATHI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN-583 131. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J M UMESHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.9/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARAPANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.112/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2016 passed in RA.No.9/2014 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli and the judgment and decree - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 dated 16.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.112/2006 by the learned Civil Judge, Harapanahalli. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of title and possession of suit 'A' schedule property and for the permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and their mother Ujjamma @ Ujjawwa, are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties were purchased by one Channabasappa i.e. plaintiff's father in the name of his wife Ujjamma under the registered sale deed. After the demise of Channabasappa, the plaintiffs and their mother are enjoying the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and their mother are living in a joint family. The defendant is the relative of the plaintiffs. The defendant married to one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 Bharamanagoudar of Maadihalli village. The defendant's husband passed away after six months from the date of marriage. The elders of the village and father of the defendant requested Channabasappa to provide a land to the defendant for cultivation and to maintain her life. The plaintiff's father had provided a shelter to the defendant in his house. The plaintiffs father consented to give 1.22 acres of land i.e., 'A' schedule property to the defendant as temporary arrangement. The defendant started to cultivate 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs and their family members were not in a good relationship with the defendant. They requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit 'A' schedule property. The defendant behind the back of the plaintiffs got entered her name in the revenue records of the suit 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs approached the defendant's son and requested to vacate and hand over the suit schedule properties. The defendant's son denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. Hence, a cause of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 action aroses for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and possession. 4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties exclusively belonged to her father, and after his demise, defendant succeeded to the suit schedule properties and the name of the defendant is entered in the revenue records. The defendant is paying the land revenue of the suit schedule properties and the defendant obtained the loan from Syndicate Bank, Gundagathi Branch, by mortgaging the suit schedule properties and exercised her proprietary rights over the suit schedule properties in favour of her son by executing a registered Gift Deed. On the basis of the registered Gift Deed, the defendant's son Basavaraja is in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule land. The plaintiffs or their family members have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file the instant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 suit. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether plaintiff proves that his father has purchased the suit schedule properties in the name of his wife Ujjavva? 2) Whether Plaintiff proves that his father and mother were in possession and after the death of plaintiff's father, plaintiff, his brothers and his mother jointly succeeded the Suit Properties and become absolute owners? 3) Whether plaintiff proves that his father had consented for 1.22 acre of land for cultivation by the Defendant after death of her husband? 4) Whether Plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule 'B' property? 5) Whether Plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief? 6) Whether defendant proves that the suit is barred by time? 7) Whether the defendant proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 8) What Order or Decree? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 6. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined himself as PW-1 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as DW-1, examined 4 witnesses as DW-2 to DW-5 and marked 21 documents as Exs.D1 to D21. 7. The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the affirmative and issue Nos.6 and 7 in the negative and issue No.8 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with cost. It is declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.54.AP/1 measuring 1.22 acres and the property bearing Sy.No.53.BP/1 measuring 1.11 acres situated at Gundagatti village in Harapanahalli Taluk. The defendant is directed to vacate and hand over 'A' schedule property to the plaintiffs within a period of 90 days. The defendant is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 8. The defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.112/2006 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC Harappanahalli preferred an appeal in R.A.No.9/2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli. 9. The First appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the trial Court judge is right in decreeing the suit? 2) Whether the interference of this Court is necessary? 3) What Order? 10. The first appellate Court after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and point No.3 as per the final order. Consequently, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 05.03.2016 and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant aggrieved by the impugned judgmentst filed this Regular Second Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant and the plaintiffs. 12. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that earlier, the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by one Nagappa. He sold the suit schedule properties in favour of Mallappa in 1960 and subsequently the said properties were sold by Mallappa in favour of Ujjamma@ Ujjawwa in 1965. He submits that the plaintiffs have pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule properties were given to Siddalingavva towards her maintenance. Hence, the said property becomes her absolute property as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The plaintiffs have no right to claim the possession of the suit schedule properties from the defendant. Hence, he submits that both the Courts below did not consider the fact that the suit schedule properties were given to the defendant towards - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 her maintenance and she is in the possession of the suit properties as a limited owner. The limited ownership of the defendants is enlarged as an absolute ownership by operation of law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendant has not pleaded in the written statement that the suit schedule properties were given towards her maintenance. He submits that the said properties was given to the defendant only for the temporary purpose till she makes an alternative arrangements. The defense taken by the defendant regarding Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply to the present case on hand. He also submits that Ujjamma@ Ujjawwa purchased the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deed in 1965. She became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He submits that the defendant has not produced any documents to show that Nagappa acquired the title to the suit schedule properties. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 He also submits that the revenue entries in the name of Nagappa is not supported by any piece of evidence. He submits that if any revenue entries based on untrue piece of evidence has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayaram & Others vs Dawalatshah & Others1 and he also submits that entries in the revenue records do not create any right over the properties. He submits that the defendant has pleaded in the written statement that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by Nagappa, and after his demise, the suit properties were transferred in the name of the defendant. Defendant has not stated how Nagappa acquired the suit schedule properties and has not pleaded in the written statement the mode of transfer of properties in the name of Nagappa. The defendant failed to establish that the Nagappa was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and after his demise, the defendant has succeeded to the suit schedule properties. He also submits 1 AIR 1971 SC 681 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 that though the plaintiffs have pleaded in the plaint regarding the temporary arrangement, the said fact has been denied by the defendant in the written statement. He also submits that the defendant cannot succeed on the pleadings of the plaintiffs. She must succeed on the defense pleaded in the written statement. He submits that both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these ground, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. This Court admitted the appeal on 29.08.2018 to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether in view of plaint averment that the suit properties were given to appellant's mother for maintenance, would it not inure to the benefit as the absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?' 15. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1. He deposed that the father of the plaintiff, i.e. Channabasappa, had purchased the suit schedule properties in the name of Ujjawwa in 1965 under a - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 registered sale deed. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and Ujjamma@Ujjawwa. Ujjamma@Ujjawwa sold a portion of the property bearing Sy.No.53A measuring 1 acre and 53D of 1 acre in favour of minor children of Kotrappa under the registered sale deed dated 21.01.1967 and the possession of the properties delivered to the purchasers. The plaintiff's mother Ujjamma became the only owner of the property bearing Sy.No.53A measuring 1 acre, 22 guntas and Sy.No.53D measuring 1.11 acres. The defendant being the close relative of the plaintiffs, the villagers requested to give some land for cultivation and to live her life till she makes some alternative arrangement. Hence, Channabasappa gave suit 'A' land to an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas to the defendant for temporary arrangement. The relationship between the family members of the plaintiffs and the defendant was not cordial. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant behind the back of the plaintiffs got entered the name of Nagappa in the revenue records and after his demise, the name of Siddalingavva was entered in the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 revenue records. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule properties. The defendant refused to hand over the suit schedule properties. Instead of handing over the suit schedule properties, the defendant executed the registered Gift Deed in favour of her son Basavaraja. Hence, plaintiffs to prove that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P8. Exs.P1 to P4 are the certified copy of the record of rights. Exs.P5 to P7 are the certified copy of the registered sale deed. Ex.P8 - Form No.21. During the cross-examination, it was elicited that the defendant's father is Nagappa and Nagappa died long back and defendant is the only daughter to the said Nagappa. The suggestion was put to PW-1 that after the death of Nagappa, his entire properties were inherited and succeeded by the defendant Siddalingavva. The PW-1 has answered to the said question that Nagappa during his lifetime sold all his properties. Further, PW-1 admits that from 1969 to 2006, the name of the defendant was mutated in the revenue records. Witness volunteers that it was mutated without their - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 knowledge. It was elicited that defendant -Siddalingavva gifted the 'A' schedule property by executing a registered Gift Deed in favour of her son Basavaraja. Though the plaintiffs have pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's husband Buramanagoudar died after six months of the marriage, as such, the defendant through elders requested Channabasappa to provide some land to lead her life, as such, Channabasappa gave 'A' schedule property for cultivation to Siddalingavva till she make some other alternative arrangements and it was suggested to PW-1 that the father of the plaintiffs never gave the suit 'A' property to Siddalingavva, towards her maintenance. The said suggestion was denied by PW-1. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as DW-1. She has deposed that Mallappa was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, after his demise, she inherited the suit schedule properties and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and to prove the defense of the defendant, the defendant has produced the record of rights marked at Exs.D1 to D15, which discloses the name of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 Siddalingavva. Exs.D16 to D18 are the tax paid receipts. Ex.D19 is the certified copy of the original gift deed, which discloses that Siddalingavva/defendant executed a registered gift deed in favour of her son Basavaraja regarding the suit 'A' schedule property measuring 1 acre 22 guntas. Ex.D20 and Ex.D21 are the Pahanis. Further, the defendant also examined witnesses as DWs-2 to 5. They have deposed that defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 16. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is clear that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by Mallappa, who had acquired the said properties under the registered sale deed executed by Nagappa i.e. father of defendant. After the execution of the registered sale deed by Nagappa in favour of Mallappa, Nagappa lost all the rights in the suit schedule properties. The father of the plaintiffs-Channabasappa purchased the suit schedule properties in the name of Ujjamma@Ujjavva under the registered sale deed in 1965. Ujjamma became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 17. It is not in dispute that the defendant is the near relative of the plaintiffs. On the villagers advice, Channabasappa gave the suit schedule 'A' property to the defendant towards her maintenance until she gets an alternative arrangement. The plaintiffs in paragraph No.4 of the plaint have pleaded, which reads as follows: Defendant is the nearest relative to the plaintiff. She is the cousin of Ujjavva. The father of the Ujjavva and the father of defendant are own brothers. The defendant was married to one Bharmanagouda of Maddihalli village. As Bharmanagouda died after six months from the marriage, the elders of the village and the father of the defendant have requested Channabasappa for providing land for cultivation to maintain her life. The father of the defendant provided shelter in Gundagathi Village, which is the house fallen to the share of the father of the defendant. The elders have also requested Channabasappa to give some land to the defendant for her enjoyment to live her life till she makes alternative arrangements. 18. The defendant filed a written statement denying paragraph No.4 of the plaint. From the perusal of paragraph - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 No.4 of the plaint, it clearly discloses that the father of the plaintiff gave suit schedule 'A' land to defendant only for temporary arrangement and not for her maintenance. Further, the defendant is in permissive possession. The defendant has not taken any defense in the written statement regarding the suit schedule properties given to defendant towards her maintenance. In the absence of pleading, merely the plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that the suit properties were given to the defendant towards her maintenance for temporary arrangements does not attract Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further, the defendant has not produced any record to show that the suit schedule 'A' property was given to her in lieu of maintenance and the Channabasappa was not liable to pay any maintenance to the defendant. 19. Admittedly, after the demise of Ujjawwa, plaintiffs have succeeded to her suit schedule properties and suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested that 'A' schedule properties was given to her - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 livelihood, the said suggestion was denied by DW-1. As observed above, defendant has not taken any defense how she became the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the said property was given to her in lieu of maintenance. 20. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgments, wherein in the said judgments, the properties were given in lieu of maintenance and further admittedly, in the instant case, the defendant had not produced any records to show the suit schedule properties were given in lieu of maintenance. Both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. 21. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. I concur with the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for defendant are not applicable to the case on hand. Though the name of the defendant appears in the revenue records, the said revenue - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 records are not supported by any piece of evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayaram and others (stated supra) held that the order of revenue officer in the mutation proceeding based on untrue piece of evidence has no evidentiary value in the civil suit. The defendant has not explained how the name of Nagappa was entered in the revenue record, though he had alienated the suit schedule properties in favor of one Mallappa in 1960. Further, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P. Govindaswamy vs. T. Devaraj2 held that the Court is not there to mechanically accept whatever the revenue authorities have put down, particularly having regard to the manner in which these entries are made and the manner in which they are changed. In considering the ratio laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this court that the Court is not required to accept the revenue entries mechanically. The entries made in the name of defendant are not tenable as they are not supported by any entries. 2 ILR 1997 KAR 1486 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:13987 RSA No. 1247 of 2016 22. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal I.A.Nos.1/2016 and 2/2017 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1