- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100436 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.NAYAKARA SHANKREMMA W/O. LATE SRI MYAKE MAREPPA, SINCE DECEASEC BY HER LRS. 1A. SMT. NAYAKARA GOURAMMA W/O. ERANNA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 1B. YUVARAJ S/O. ERANNA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 1C. TIPPANNA S/O. ERANNA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 1D. SHANKRAPPA S/O. ERANNA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. ALL ARE R/O: H.NO.2249, WARD NO.7, PALLELINGAPPA ONI, KUDATINI – 583 115, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A) TO A1(D)] AND: 1. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 (P.D.O), GRAM PANCHAYATH KUDUTHINI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DIST. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C. COMPOUND, BALLARI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI SUB-DIVISION, D.C. COMPOUND, BALLARI. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYATH, FORT, BALLARI. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, BALLARI TALUK OFFICE, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FR R2, R3 AND R5; NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED) THIS RSA IS FIELD UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.57/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 03.06.2014 IN O.S.NO.827/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) BALLARI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2014 passed in OS No.827/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ballari (for short, ‘Trial Court’), which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 28.03.2016 in RA No.57/2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. Plaintiff filed the above suit seeking relief of declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondents claiming that she is the absolute owner in possession of suit property bearing old No.232 and new No.2805 measuring 20 ft. X 30 ft., having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 08.03.1999 from her vendors. That she has been paying the tax in respect of suit schedule property to the concerned Gram Panchayat regularly and she was running a petty shop in the suit schedule property. That the suit property is situated abutting Ballari – Hosapete main road and she was depending upon the income derived there from. The defendants without giving any notice demolished her pakka house - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 constructed on the suit property on 08.03.2011. Hence, the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 5 filed written statement which is adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 4. It is contended that, the land in Sy.No.549/C measuring 4.98 acres and another land in Sy.No.677/B measuring 2.18 acres situated at Kudithini village is ‘Grama Natta Land’, which belongs to the Government. That defendant No.5 has allotted the said land to the KSRTC, Ballari for construction of new Bus Stand on 23.04.2001. In the said land certain persons had put up temporary sheds and stored fodders. The KSRTC authorities had written a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Ballari, for taking necessary action against the encroachers. Defendants with the help of police cleared the illegal encroachments. Plaintiff has been allotted alternate plot in Sy.No.708 measuring 30 X 40 ft., under ‘Ashrya Scheme’ and Gram Panchayat had sanctioned Rs.35,000/- to the plaintiff for construction of house over the said plot under ‘Indira Avaze Vasati Yojane’. It is further contended that, defendant Nos.1 to 4 had issued notice on 10.02.2011 to all the persons including the plaintiff who had put up shed illegally. Plaintiff refused to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 receive the notice. As such, the same was affixed on the door of the house of the plaintiff and Panchayath had given 7 days time to vacate the premises. All persons including the plaintiff had voluntarily vacated the premises. However, the plaintiff has now filed a false suit. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Defendant No.5 in his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff of she being the owner of the suit property and has asserted that the same belongs the KSRTC, which has cleared the encroachment. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner and lawful owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have demolished the pakka house constructed by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property on 08.03.2011 and their by interfering the plaintiff’s possession of suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 4. What order or decree? 6. Plaintiff examining herself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to 5. On the other than, Officer of defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and 17 documents marked as Ex.D.1 to 17. 7. Based on the appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the regular appeal in R.A.No.57/2014 on the file of First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Has the Trial Court erred in holding the issue No.1 in negative in-spite of production of Ex.P1 registered sale deed by the plaintiff? 2. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court needs interference? 3. What order or decree? 8. The First Appellate Court answered point No. 1 and 2 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved plaintiff is before this Court. 9. Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellant Court have grossly erred in dismissing the suit, merely because the plaintiff did not produce the title deed of vendors. Though the plaintiff had produced title deed under which she had acquired the property in question, she insists, that the Trial Court and the First Appellant Court ought not to have dismissed the suit on this ground without framing an issue and providing an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence in that regard. That when the plaintiff has based her claim on the title deed and the same not having been cancelled, the Trial Court and the First Appellant Court ought not to have held the property to be the Government property. Hence, she submits that the impugned judgment and decree would give rise to substantial question of law requiring consideration by this court. 10. Per contra, Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 5 justifiying the judgment and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellant Court submits that though the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property in terms of the deed of sale dated 08.03.1999, not a single piece of documentary evidence is produced to show how the vendors of the plaintiff in turn acquired title over the suit property. He submits that plaintiff claiming suit property in a lager extent of land in Sy.No.549/C and 677/B which always and even presently standing in the name of the Government, classified as ‘Grama Natta Land’. He submits that the said land has been allotted for the purpose of construction of bus stand and plaintiff having been granted alternate site, no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. That The plaintiff did not have any right, share or interest over the subject property. Hence, he submits that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration and seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard and perused the records. 12. Plaintiff who has filed the above suit for declaration of her title claiming to have purchased the suit property in terms of deed of sale dated 08.03.1999, has not produce a single piece of evidence showing the flow of title of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 her vendor prior to coming into existence of the said deed of sale. Vendor has neither been made party to the suit nor has he been examined in support of her claim. On the other hand the defendant has claimed the land in Sy.Nos. 549 and 677/A is the Government Land over which a Bus Stand has been constructed by removing the encroachments. 13. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having taken note of the said matter, in the light of defence taken up by the respondents-State authorities, have come to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to establish her right, title and interest over the suit property as claimed by her. 14. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have also taken note of the fact that the plaintiff has been allotted an alternate site being No.43 measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 40 feet on 28.09.2001 under Ashreya Scheme and the concerned Gram Panchayath has even extended financial aid under Indra Avaze Vasati Yojane, enabling the plaintiff to put up construction thereon. 15. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having examined the materials evidence produced by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7609 RSA No. 100436 of 2016 plaintiff, have rejected the claim of her ownership over the suit property. 16. In the absence of any illegality being pointed out, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM- para 1 to 4 VB – para 4.1 to till end CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23