Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100029 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SAYAWWA W/O. LAKAPPA @ ANNAPPA BALAWAD, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs., WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 18 HEREIN. 2. SMT. CHANDRAWWA W/O. SURESH TELI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 3. SMT. SHUSHILAWWA W/O. BALACHANDRA BHUMAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ICHALAKARANJI, MAHARASHTRA STATE-416115. 4. SIDRAMESH S/O. LAKKAPPA @ ANNAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 5. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SHANKAR BHUMAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 6. SHRI. RAMESH S/O. LAKKAPPA @ ANNAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.02 16:02:50 +0530
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 7. SMT. ANASUYA W/O. GURULINGAPPA KANKANAWADI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULLOLI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BEGALKOT-587301. 8. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. BASAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 9. SMT. BHAGAWWA W/O. VITHAL TELI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 10. SHRI. ADIVEPPA S/O. BASAPPA BALAWAD, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., AS APPELLANTS NO.10(A) TO 10(D). 10(A). SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. ADIVEPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 10(B). SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O. ADIVEPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 10(C). SHRI. CHETAN S/O. ADIVEPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 10(D). SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. ADIVEPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL THE APPELLANTS 10(A) TO (D) ARE RESIDING AT GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. - 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
11. SMT. KASHAWWA D/O. MALLAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 12. SMT. NINGAWWA W/O. BASAPPA KANKANAWADI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULLOLI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. 13. SHRI. ISHWAR S/O. MALLAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 14. SMT. VENKAWWA W/O. KALLAPPA JIDDI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587314. 15. SMT.
LAXMIBAI W/O. PARASAPPA KALATIPPI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587314. 16. SMT. KASTUREWWA W/O. KALLAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 17. SMT. REKHA W/O. BHIMAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. 18. KAVITA D/O. KALLAPPA BALAWAD, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
R/O: GANI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587121. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DUNDAWWA W/O. LAKKAPAP HANCHINAL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRABUR, TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-587117. 2. SMT. LAXMAWWA W/O. RANGAPPA BISANAL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: C/O: RANGAPPA GASTI, MANTUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 3. SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANTUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 4. SHRI. YALLAPPA W/O. BHIMAPPA TALAWAR, (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL FATHER AND MINOR GUARDIAN I.E. RESPONDENT NO.3). 5. SHRI SADASHIV S/O. YALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANTUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 6. SHRI.ARJUN S/O. YALLAPPA TALAWAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANTUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 7. SMT. PADDAWWA
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
W/O. GANGAPPA NIDONI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NESUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102. 8. SHRI. MANJUNATH M/O. SANGEETH KAMBLE, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MALLAMMA NAGAR, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ON IA NO.3/2022, BY IMPLEADING THE RESPONDENT NO.8 HEREIN). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADAWAD AND SRI. ARUN S.YADAWAD, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R7;
SRI. S.C.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.82/2016. Plaintiffs suit seeking relief of declaration for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property is dismissed by the Court below by holding that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that they are the joint owners. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Before this Court delves into the matter, this Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the family tree of the original owner namely Yallawwa W/o Bhimappa Balawad. The same is extracted as under:
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
Genealogy
Yallawwa W/o. Bhimappa Balawad (died on 25-12-1996)
Lakkappa @ Annappa Basappa Mallappa Sadashiv Kallappa (died on 19-04-1979) (Died on 15-11-01) (Died) (Died) (Died on 27-01-11)
=Sayawwa(P-1) =Gangawwa(P-8) =Hanamawwa =Kasturevva (died) (P-16)
Bhagavva (P-9) Adiveppa (P-10) Bhimappa(Dead) Kavita(P-18) =Rekha (P-17)
Kasturevva Arjun Ningawwa Ishwar Venkawwa Laxmibai (P-11) (Dead (P-12) (P-13) (P-14) (P-15) unmarried)
Chandrawwa Sushilavva Sidramesh Mahadevi Ramesh Anasuya (P-2) (P-3) (P-4) (P-5) (P-6) (P-7)
4. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiffs who are claiming to be the grand children of one Yallawwa Balawad are seeking a declaration of title based on gift deed executed by Mallappa Lakkappa Savadi in favour of Yallawwa in respect of Sy.No.98/2 and another land bearing Sy.No.99/3, both situated at Mantur Village, Mudhol Taluk. Plaintiffs assert that their grandmother Yallawwa became the absolute owner pursuant to gift deed executed by one Mallappa on
21.03.1941. Plaintiffs have further pleaded that after
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
death of Yallawwa, they have inherited the suit land as well as the other land and therefore, claim to be the absolute owners and in actual possession over the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs, however, on enquiring into the revenue records found that though Yallawwa's name was reflected in the RTC since 1941, however, Yallawwa's name was continued till 1998-99 and thereafter the defendants ancestor namely Yallappa S/o Bhimappa Talawar got his name mutated to the RTC pertaining to the suit property in 1998-99.
Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 to 7 have got their name mutated as per M.R.No.59/2011- 12 on the premise that Yallappa Bhimpaa Talawar died on
30.09.2006. Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the impugned mutations thereby entering the defendants name preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner on enquiry ordered to delete the names of defendants and restore the name of the plaintiffs ancestor. Same is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. - 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
However, plaintiffs asserting that defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, the present suit is filed to declare plaintiffs as joint owners and in joint possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Apart from denying the plaintiffs title over the suit schedule property, the defendants also claimed that the present suit is clearly time barred since plaintiffs have failed to challenge the entries in the RTC which were deleted in 1998. Defendants claimed that for the last 20 years, plaintiffs have not taken any action against mutations in the RTC and therefore, requested to dismiss the suit. Plaintiffs to substantiate their title over the property in question let in oral and documentary evidence. Defendants, however, let in only oral evidence of defendant No.3 and did not produce any documents to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
substantiate their title and possession over the suit schedule property. Trial Court in absence of gift deed declined to confer title on the plaintiffs and accordingly, answered issue No.1 in the negative. While answering issue No.4 in the affirmative, trial Court held that defendants have succeeded in proving that the present suit is barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs are in appeal. 5. Pending consideration of this appeal, it appears that plaintiffs filed an application seeking leave of the Court to place on record additional documents which included original registered gift deed.
Pursuant to leave granted by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025, plaintiffs have let in further evidence and the original gift deed along with translation is placed on record. The gift
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
deed is marked at Ex.P-50 and the translation is marked at Ex.P-50A. 6. Heard
learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, learned counsel appearing for the defendants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 who is the pendente lite purchaser. The following points would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit land warrants reversal in the light of the original gift deed produced by the plaintiffs which is marked at Ex.P-50? 2) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the present suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction is barred by limitation as plaintiffs have not chosen to contest and challenge the revenue entries in favour of defendants? Finding on Point No.1:
7. The plaintiffs have traced their title to the suit schedule property through their grandmother, Yallawwa. - 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
They assert that Yallawwa acquired ownership of the property pursuant to a registered gift deed executed in her favor by one Mallappa, son of Lakkappa Savadi, on
21.03.1941. It is noteworthy that during the trial proceedings before the lower court, the plaintiffs failed to produce the original title documents. However, with the leave of this Court, they have now submitted the original registered gift deed as additional evidence. The application for the admission of additional evidence was allowed, and the plaintiffs were granted an opportunity to lead further evidence. As a result, the original gift deed has been marked as Exhibit P-50, thereby strengthening the plaintiffs' claim over the suit schedule property. 8. Upon a thorough examination of the written statement filed by the defendants, it becomes apparent that they do not assert ownership over the suit property. Notably, the defendants have not referred to any documentary evidence establishing their title. Instead, their primary defense is a general denial, particularly in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
paragraph 9 of the written statement, where they contend that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not challenged the entry of Yallappa Bhimappa Talawar’s name in the Record of Rights, Tenancy, and Crops (RTC) for over 20 years. However, in the absence of a counterclaim or any title documents refuting the plaintiffs' ownership, the defendants’ challenge remains unsubstantiated.
Given that the plaintiffs have now produced the original registered gift deed and additional supporting evidence before this Court, they have successfully demonstrated that their ancestor, Yallawwa, acquired ownership of the suit property through a validly executed gift deed dated
21.03.1941. Since the defendants’ only argument revolves around disputing the plaintiffs’ title without asserting any independent ownership rights, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have effectively proven their claim by virtue of the original gift deed and supplementary evidence. - 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
9. The defendants have attempted to cast doubt on the title of Mallappa, the donor of the gift deed, by suggesting that he lacked ownership rights over the suit schedule property at the time of execution. However, this argument is unconvincing. The defendants are unrelated to the plaintiffs' family and have not established any legal standing to contest the title of Mallappa. More importantly, they have not presented any documentary evidence to demonstrate that Mallappa was not the rightful owner at the time of executing the gift deed. In the absence of any substantive challenge or competing claim of ownership, this Court finds that the defendants lack the necessary grounds to dispute the donor’s title over the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claim stands fortified by the production of the original gift deed, which remains a legally valid and binding document confirming Yallawwa’s ownership rights. 10. A meticulous examination of the revenue records further reveals that the defendants have engaged
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
in systematic manipulation to fraudulently alter the property records in their favor. The documentary evidence, including Exhibits P-1 to P-11, unequivocally establishes that the name of Yallawwa, wife of Bhimappa Talawad, was originally recorded in the RTC. However, discrepancies in the records indicate deliberate alterations. Initially, Yallawwa’s surname was erroneously recorded as
“Talawad” instead of “Balawad” until the revenue year 2001-02. Subsequently, the surname “Talawad” was further manipulated and changed to “Talawar” to falsely align with the defendants' surname, thereby creating a misleading record.
The fraudulent insertion of Yallappa, son of Bhimappa Talawar’s name in the RTC, first appeared in 2001 without any legitimate basis or supporting documentation. This manipulation of revenue records was thoroughly investigated by the Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi, whose findings led to the cancellation of these illegal entries. The detailed order of the Assistant Commissioner, marked as Exhibit P-2, categorically sets aside the wrongful mutations. This
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
decision was later affirmed in a revision proceeding by the Deputy Commissioner, as evidenced by Exhibit P-3. These findings further reinforce the plaintiffs’ assertion that the changes in the revenue records were orchestrated with mala fide intent to deprive them of their rightful ownership. 11. Taking into account the overwhelming documentary evidence, including the original gift deed (Exhibit P-50) and the meticulously scrutinized revenue records, this Court is of the firm view that the plaintiffs have successfully substantiated their claim of ownership over the suit schedule property. The gift deed, executed by Mallappa in favor of Yallawwa, is a legally valid document that unequivocally establishes her title. Furthermore, the fraudulent alterations in the revenue records, which have since been rectified through official inquiries, serve to expose the defendants’ unlawful attempt to appropriate the property. Given these circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial court on
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
Issue No.1 warrant a reversal. In light of the original registered gift deed being placed on record and the plaintiffs having led additional evidence, this Court finds merit in the plaintiffs’ claim and accordingly answers Point No.1 in the affirmative. Finding on Point No.2:
12. The defendants have sought to non-suit the plaintiffs by contending that the suit is barred by limitation. They argue that although the name of Yallawwa was deleted from the revenue records in the year 2001, the plaintiffs failed to initiate legal proceedings until 2016.
Based on this assertion, the defendants invoke the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act to contend that the suit is time-barred. However, this argument does not hold water in light of the well-settled legal position consistently upheld by this Court. It has been repeatedly held that any alteration or modification in the revenue records that is carried out without strict adherence to the mandatory requirements prescribed under Sections 128
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot, by itself, be deemed to be a challenge to the title of the rightful owner. The mere modification of revenue records, particularly when such changes are effectuated in blatant contravention of the principles of natural justice, cannot be considered as an action that necessitates a legal response from the true owner. Furthermore, it is a settled proposition of law that a person who has acquired title by virtue of a registered document is not required to continually establish or reaffirm their title, unless a genuine and serious dispute to ownership is raised by another party. The Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly in the case of Anathulla Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy, has unequivocally held that a plaintiff is required to seek declaratory relief only when there is a substantial and serious challenge to the title in question. In the present case, no such counter-title has been set up by the defendants. - 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
13. Upon careful examination of the pleadings submitted by the defendants, it is evident that apart from a mere denial of the plaint averments and a vague assertion regarding the suit being barred by limitation, there are no substantive or well-founded pleadings contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. The written statement filed by the defendants is bereft of any substantial material that could cast doubt upon the title of the plaintiffs or justify the claim that the suit is barred by limitation.
The trial court, while adjudicating the matter, erroneously recorded findings on issue No.4 in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. However, upon close scrutiny, it is apparent that such findings suffer from perversity and are not supported by cogent reasoning or legal justification. In light of these deficiencies, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court on this issue warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, we find it imperative to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation, and point No.2 is, therefore, answered in the negative. - 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
14. In addition to the findings recorded above, it is also pertinent to take into account the position of respondent No.8, who is a pendente lite purchaser. It is a well-established legal principle that a pendente lite purchaser does not acquire any independent right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property. Any transaction undertaken during the pendency of litigation does not confer valid title upon the transferee, as the principle of lis pendens operates to prevent the creation of third-party rights that could potentially interfere with the adjudication of the dispute. In the instant case, the defendants, who themselves lacked any legally saleable right or title over the suit property, have deliberately attempted to create third-party rights in favor of respondent No.8 with the sole intention of defeating the lawful claims of the plaintiffs. Such an action is clearly an attempt to frustrate the due process of law and cannot be permitted. In view of these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain any
submissions on behalf of respondent No.8, as any decree passed in this matter would necessarily bind the pendente
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
lite purchaser as well. Moreover, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the defendants have been examined, and it is found that they bear no relevance to the present case. Consequently, they do not advance the case of the defendants in any manner.
15. In the light of discussion made supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: (i) Appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court dated 12.10.2018 in O.S.No.82/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is hereby set aside; (iii) Consequently, suit is decreed. Plaintiffs are declared to be the absolute owners of the suit land and in possession of the suit schedule property;
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5411-DB RFA No. 100029 of 2019
(iv) Defendants and respondent No.8 before this Court are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
CA Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24