- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180 RSA No. 100523 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100523 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: JAHANGIR HUSSAN CHOUKAVE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORGAON VILLAGE-591201, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: JABBAR @ JABBIR S/O ISAAK MAKANDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORGAON VILLAGE-591201, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 CPC PRAYING TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND ALLOW THE APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A. NO.45/2016 DATED: 15.03.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT CHIKODI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHIKODI IN O.S. NO.134/2013 DATED: 06.08.2016 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180 RSA No. 100523 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2021 in RA No.45/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2016 in OS No.134/2013 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property as the same was granted in favour of father of the plaintiff during 1988-89. It is further stated that, the defendant has interfered with the suit schedule properties and as such, the plaintiff has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180 RSA No. 100523 of 2022 filed suit in OS No.134/2013, seeking declaration and consequential relief. 4. On service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the grant made by the Government in favour of the father of the plaintiff. It is also stated in the written statement that, the brother of the defendant – Mustaq continued in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 10 years and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on pleadings, has formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and produced 06 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to P6. Defendant has examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked 20 documents as Ex.D1 to D20. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 06.08.2016, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred appeal in RA No.45/2016 before the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180 RSA No. 100523 of 2022 First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 15.03.2021 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.134/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. I have heard Sri. C.S. Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 8. It is submitted by Sri. C.S. Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the fact that, Panchayat has granted the suit schedule property in favour of the father of the plaintiff and same was admitted by the defendant in the written statement and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires interference. 9. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the plaintiff has filed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180 RSA No. 100523 of 2022 suit seeking relief of declaration based on the resolution passed by the Panchayat as per Ex.P.2 and P.3. Admittedly, no sale deed has been executed by the Panchayat in favour of the father of the plaintiff and therefore, following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of Hullappa Vs. The State of Karnataka1, wherein it is held that, in a suit for declaration of title unless the plaintiff produces the document of title, the Civil Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of revenue records. 10. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly considered the material on record and dismissed the suit as the plaintiff fails to produce the relevant document to establish his right over the suit schedule property and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal as the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. 1 ILR 2012 KAR 4958 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180 RSA No. 100523 of 2022 11. In the result, appeal fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28