- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027 RSA No. 100472 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100472 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: KEMPANNA S/O. BALAPPA METI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TALUK. GOKAK, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI – 591224. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. P. MURARI AND SMT. DEEPA UDIYAR, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. SHIVALINGAWWA D/O. NINGAPPA JIDDIMANI, AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591224. …RESPONDENT -------- THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.45/2019 DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.851/2010 DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., GOKAK, DISMISSING THE SAID SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.23 10:31:33 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027 RSA No. 100472 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2020 in RA No.45/2019 on the file I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019 in OS No.851/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak (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 averred in the plaint that the land bearing Sy.No.83/7+13/1B measuring 30 guntas of Rajapur, Gokak Taluk was belonged to father of the plaintiff-Balappa and accordingly the plaintiff has sought for relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that the defendant is claiming the right over the suit property and interfered with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has filed OS No.851/2010. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027 RSA No. 100472 of 2022 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement alleging that the mother of the defendants–Yallawwa has purchased portion of the land in Sy.Nos.83/12, 83/15 and 83/7+3 of Rajapur village as per registered sale deed dated 22.05.1962 and accordingly, disputed the title of the plaintiff and further pleaded that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 5. The Trial Court based on pleadings has formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and produced 19 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to P19. Defendant has examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and marked 13 documents as Ex.D1 to D13. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA No.45/2019 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 10.12.2020, dismissed the appeal and as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027 RSA No. 100472 of 2022 such confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.851/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. Sri. A. P. Murari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have not appreciated the material on record despite the fact that the plaintiff has produced Ex.P1 to P6, record of rights from 1971- 2008 which clearly show the name of the father of the plaintiff- Balappa and also it is submitted that the original propositus of the land in question-Kempanna was the grand-father of the plaintiff and therefore, countered the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 8. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on careful examination of the averment made in the written statement wherein the defendants have pleaded that the defendants are the owner of the schedule property as the mother of the defendants as per registered sale deed dated 22.05.1962, purchased the portion of the suit property and the defendants have stated that they are in the possession of the suit schedule property. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027 RSA No. 100472 of 2022 9. In the backdrop of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and on careful examination of the plaint averments makes it clear that the plaintiff has not described the suit property with exact extent and boundaries in the plaint. In that view of the matter, it is well settled principle in law that in a suit for declaration, burden is on the plaintiff to establish its title in respect of the suit property and the revenue entries cannot be relied upon to confer title to the plaintiff (see (2014) 2 SCC 269). It is also to be noted that in a suit for declaration, the plaintiff has to prove his title with cogent evident to establish in the plaint with regard to description of the property in question. 10. In the present case, on careful examination of the plaint averments, no description of the property has been given by the plaintiff and therefore, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion to decline relief of declaration. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the plaintiff has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC and also findings recorded by both the Courts below makes it clear that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027 RSA No. 100472 of 2022 both the Courts below. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22