Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45569 (KAR)

BASAVARAJA v. SRI. BASAPPA @ PARUSHAPPA

RSA/1210/2023 · 2025-11-25

H P Sandesh

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1210 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJA, D/O SRI. MADIWALARA MUDIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SRI. MUDIYAPPA, S/O SRI. HANUMA AGASARA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS. 3. SRI. NAGAPPA, S/O SRI. HANUMA AGASARA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 4. SRI. NINGAPPA, S/O SRI. HANUMA AGASARA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 5. SRI. SHIVU, S/O LATE SRI. SIDDAPPA & SMT. KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 6. SMT. LALITHAMMA, W/O LATE SRI. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDA BATHI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA T., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 AND: 1. SRI. BASAPPA @ PARUSHAPPA, S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 2. REVANAPPA, S/O RANGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. SAVAKKA, W/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 3. SRI. RANGAPPA, S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 4. SMT. SIDDAMMA, D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 5. SRI. VIJAYA, S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 6. KUM. REKHA, D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT DODDA BATHI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.337/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, it is specifically pleaded that originally the suit schedule property was granted to the propositus of the plaintiffs’ family by name Hanumappa Agasara, who died long back. The said Hanumappa had five sons by name Mudiyappa, Nagappa, Ningappa, Siddappa and Ramappa. Amongst these, Siddappa and Ramappa are no more and plaintiff No.1 is the son of Mudiyappa. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 and their ancestors have come to Doddabathi Village from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 Devarahalli Village for their livelihood and at that time, the grandfather of the plaintiffs Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara orally permitted the father of defendant No.2 to reside in the suit schedule property on the basis of permissive possession and that neither defendant No.2 nor his father is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. That being so, defendant No.2 by colluding with defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.1 by executing a registered sale deed on 04.07.2008. The said act of the defendants was resisted by the plaintiffs’ father by issuing a telegraphic notice, but the same was of no use. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have got changed the khatha of the suit schedule property into the name of defendant No.1 and without any right they are claiming the same. The plaintiffs have also issued the quit notice on 15.04.2010 to defendant No.1, but defendant No.1 did not comply with the same. Hence, they filed the suit. The Court earlier disposed of the suit on 13.10.2015. Hence, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree and the same was set aside by the Appellate Court and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration giving an opportunity to lead further evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 4. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement denying the very title of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 contended that Hanumappa Agasara was not having any right in respect of the property and the property is also not related to the plaintiffs or their family and permissive possession of defendant No.2 is also a created story with an intention to knock off the property belonging to defendant No.2. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of defendant No.2 and since the lifetime of his grandfather by name Hanumappa @ Hanumajja, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property more than 50 years and defendant No.2 had executed a sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 on 04.07.2008 and thereafter, a registered correction deed also came into existence on 23.02.2010 and hence defendant No.1 claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as the absolute owner. The defendant No.2 denied the entire plaint averments made in the plaint and contended that the property not belongs to the plaintiffs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of both the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered all the issues in the negative considering the case of the plaintiffs and the defendants in paragraph No.12. The Trial Court also discussed with regard to the documents, which have been produced by the plaintiffs at Exs.P.4, 5, 18, 20, 21 and 23 to 27 and comes to the conclusion that the documents which have been relied upon are all the revenue documents and not produced any document with regard to the title of Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara. The Trial Court also taken note of the contention of the defendants and producing of document in paragraph No.15 and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property. They are not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and also with regard to the title is concerned and dismissed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an appeal is filed and the First Appellate Court having considered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference and whether the Trial Court has erred in holding that revenue records are not title deeds of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly in paragraph No.28 comes to the conclusion that it is settled principle of law that pleadings are to be proved by production of cogent oral and satisfactory documentary evidence. On perusal of Exs.P.1 to 32, no documents are coming forth before the Court to show that Hanuma Agasara has valid, legal title over the suit schedule property. It is settled principle of law that revenue records do not prove the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. When the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit schedule property, the question of declaring the registered sale deed dated 04.07.2008 as illegal and void ab-initio does not arise in respect of the sale deed of the defendants is concerned. It also comes to the conclusion that in the absence of cogent evidence before the Court with regard to the title as well as the relief sought, the question of granting - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 the relief does not arise and the Trial court has not committed any error. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that inspite of documents are produced before the Trial Court that the suit property was granted to the father of the appellants i.e., Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara, both the Courts committed an error and failed to consider the documents Exs.P.4 and 5 i.e., house list register and tax demand register. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to take note of the fact that the father of the appellants Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara had given the suit schedule property to the father of defendant No.2 on permissive possession and hence, it requires interference of this Court to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, the very specific - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 pleading of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property was granted to the propositus of the plaintiff’s family by name Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara. But to prove the said fact, nothing is placed on record about granting of property and apart from that, no title deeds are also produced before the Court. The Trial Court in detail taken note of the case of the plaintiffs and defendants in paragraph No.12 and in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs except relying upon the revenue documents, not produced any document and comes to the conclusion that when the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property, the question of granting the relief of declaration as well as consequential relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction does not arise. 10. 10. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.28 considering the documents of Ex.P.1 to 32, which have been produced, comes to the conclusion that the same are not in respect of the legal title over the schedule property in respect of the claim made by the plaintiffs to show that the property originally belongs to Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara. When - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 the title documents are not placed on record, the question of granting the relief as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants does not arise and the materials are also very clear that except producing the documents of Exs.P.4 and 5 i.e., house list register and tax demand register, nothing is placed on record and also with regard to the permissive possession is concerned also, nothing is placed on record. On the other hand, the defendants have placed the documents of sale deed interse between defendant Nos.1 and 2. When the suit is filed for the relief of declaration, the plaintiffs must stand on their own legs and not on the weakness of the defendants and the same cannot be a reason to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiffs. When such being the case, when the question of fact and question of law are considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to the claim of the plaintiffs is concerned, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48673 RSA No. 1210 of 2023 ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32