- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100321 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. PADMAVVA W/O. NARASAPPA PASSANNAVAR AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUGAD, TQ: and DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O. NARASAPPA PASANNAVAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.MUGAD, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD -580001. 3. NAGAPPA S/O. NARASAPPA PASANNAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.MUGAD, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD -580001. 4. TAVANAPPA S/O. NARASAPPA PASANNAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGAD, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD -580001. 5. BALAVVA W/O. PARISAPPA GALI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUGAD, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A. C. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 13:11:26 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 AND: 1. MANJUNATH S/O. DEVENDRAPPA PASANNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PAYATI ONI, MUGAD, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 2. BASAVENNAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA MACHIGADA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAYANGAR, SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD-580001. 3. BHIMARAYAPPA S/O. JINNAPPA PASANNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. LAXMI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001. 4. SMT. SUSHILA BASAVANNAPPA MACHIGAD, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 5. SANJAY BASAVANNAPPA MACHIGAD, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, 6. VIJAY BASAVANNAPPA MACHIGAD.S AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE ALL ARE RESIDING AT: “RAJESHWARI” BUILDING, JAYANAGAR, SAPTAPUR, LAST CROSS, DHARWAD – 580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; SRI. NANDEESH H PATIL & SRINIVAS A M, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.04.2014 PASSED BY HON’BLE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD IN R.A.NO.131/2010 (OLD NO.213/2003) CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2003 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.31/2002 AND TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2014 in R.A.No.131/2010 (Old R.A.No.213/2003) on the file of the II- Additional District Judge, Dharwad (for short “the First Appellate Court”) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2003 in O.S.No.31/2002 on the file of the I-Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Dharwad (for short “the Trial Court”) dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner in possession of the land bearing Survey No.237/2A measuring 2 Acres 5 Guntas situated at Mugad village and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the owners in possession of the land bearing Survey No.237/2B measuring 2 Acres 4 Guntas. It is further stated in the plaint that the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 contention of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of total land measuring 4 Acres 9 Guntas in Survey No.237/2A and 237/2B of Mugad village. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant No.1 has sold the land bearing Survey No.237/1 measuring 3 Acres 5 Guntas to the defendant No.2 as per the registered sale deed dated 25.07.2001, however, the revenue records have not been changed properly pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 25.07.2001. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendant No.1 is trying to alienate the suit schedule property by taking undue advantage of the wrong entry made in the registered sale deed dated 28.12.2001, and therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction against the defendants. 3.1. On service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed separate written statements. It is the case of defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land bearing Survey No.237/A and 237/B measuring 3 Acres 5 Guntas but not 4 Acres 9 Guntas as claimed in the plaint. It is stated in the written statement that the defendant No.1 has sold a portion of the land bearing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 Survey No.237/1 as per the registered sale deed dated 28.12.2001 in favour of defendant No.2 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have impleaded defendant No.2 and he has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and took up a specific contention that the defendant No.2 had purchased 4 Acres 9 Guntas of land in Survey No.237/1 from the defendant No.1 and he is in possession of the land in question and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.3. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues and additional issues for its consideration. 3.4. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs have examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 15 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. The defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and marked 5 documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 07.11.2003 dismissed the suit and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed R.A.No.213/2003 before the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 First Appellate Court and same was re-numbered as R.A.No.131/2010. The said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 19.04.2014 dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. S. G. Nandoor on behalf of Sri. A. C. Chakalabbi, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Seema Shiva Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 to 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs solely on the ground of registered sale deed dated 28.12.2001 said to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and the discrepancy is only with regard to the extent of the land and the said aspect has not been considered by both the Courts below and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the land bearing Survey No.237/1 is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the said aspect has not been considered by both the Courts below despite the fact that the plaintiffs have produced the RTC extracts and Mutation Entries to substantiate their case in respect of the subject matter of the land. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants have filed I.A.No.4/2015 and I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to produce certain revenue records as additional documents annexed along with the applications and for leading additional evidence and prayed to consider the same in this appeal. Accordingly, the appellants have sought interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Smt. Seema Shiva Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 to 6 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 7. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the fact that the plaintiffs are the owner in possession of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 land bearing Survey No.237/2A and 237/2B of Mugad village and the same has been accepted by the defendants in their written statement. However, the core question that requires consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants/plaintiffs have substantiated their right over the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.237/1 of Mugad village. In this regard, on careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, though the appellants have stated that the land bearing Survey No.237/1 is belonging to the ancestors of the plaintiffs, however, no document has been produced before the Trial Court except Mutation Entries and tax paid receipts, which would not confer title to the plaintiffs. 8. In this regard, this Court in the case of Hullappa v. State of Karnataka through Deputy Commissioner, Bidar reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4958 has held that in a suit for declaration of title, without there being title deeds or any document of title, declaration cannot be accepted. It is also held that the declaration granted based on revenue documents like RTC Extracts, Tax-paid receipts, Mutation Extracts would not create a title insofar as the parties are concerned and it is a fundamental principle of law that same has to be kept in mind - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 by the Trial Court in a suit for declaration of title and relief of declaration cannot be accepted based on revenue entries. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs cannot be accepted. 9. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Vasavi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd & Others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 269, wherein it is held that the entries in revenue records do not confer any title to the parties. Taking into consideration the fact that in the absence of any title deeds in suit for declaration, I am of the view that both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. As the appellants have not made out a ground for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the CPC, the appeal stands dismissed at the state of admission itself. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:613 RSA No. 100321 of 2014 10. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16