- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100308 OF 2022 (DEC/PAR-) BETWEEN: SHRI MELAGIRIGOUDA S/O. NAGANAGOUDA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 90 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANSHI, TQ: NAVALAGUNDA, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI NINGANAGOUDA S/O. NAGANAGOUDA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, (SINCE DECEASED BY LR9S) 1(A) SRI. MALLANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-581212. 1(B) SUVARNA W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAVI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 1(C) RAVI NINGANAGOUDA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREBUDIHAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-581212. &.RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1(A), (B), (C) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KUNDGOL, IN O.S.NO.46/2018 DATED 18.02.2022 AND ALLOW THE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 30.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022 passed in O.S. No.46/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kundgol2 whereunder the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the Trial Court. 1 Hereinafter referred to as 8CPC9 2 Hereinafter referred to as 8the Trial Court9 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties i.e., the plaintiff and defendant are the sons of one Naganagouda, who died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant and three daughters as his legal representatives. That the sisters of the parties have died long back. That the plaintiff and defendant constitute a joint family and they have purchased an agricultural land bearing Survey No.104/4 (item No.1 of 8A9 schedule) from one Naganagouda Venkanagouda in the year 1964 from the income of the joint family. That since the defendant who was the elder brother of the family was managing the joint family, he purchased the property in his name and that the Khata was mutated in his name vide M.E.No.1313. However, the property was a joint family property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he got appointed as CRPF constable and went to service. That during his service, he used to come and visit his village and pay some amounts from his salary to the defendant to purchase the property. That the defendant was cultivating the agricultural land and from the income of the joint family property, the plaintiff and defendant have jointly purchased another agricultural land bearing Sy.No.102/2 of Hirebudihal village (item No.2 of 8A9 schedule9) in the year 1972 from one H.B.Kadappanagouda and got mutated their names under MR No.1512. That the plaintiff and defendant further purchased a house property out of the income of the joint family in the name of the defendant. That when the plaintiff was serving in the border area, he fell ill and took voluntary retirement and started residing in his sister9s house at Hanasi village of Navalagund Taluk, as he married the daughter of his sister. That he used to visit Hirebudihal village to see his relatives, land and house properties. That, the defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 was cultivating the suit lands by residing in the suit house property and used to give some food grains grown in the land, but one year prior to filing of the suit, the defendant did not give any food grains and when asked, he said that as there was a drought, as a result of which he could not grow grain and will give the same in the following year. That believing the same, the plaintiff kept quiet and in the following year when he demanded the food grains, the defendant replied saying that if the lands are in his name, he may cultivate the land. That upon verification, the plaintiff learnt that the land in Survey No. 102/2 stood in the name of the defendant and the defendant created a bogus relinquishment deed dated 24.06.1987 as if the plaintiff has given up his share in favour of the defendant. It is contended that the plaintiff has not executed any relinquishment deed and the signature on the said deed is not that of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff has a half share in the suit properties. That when the plaintiff asked defendant No.1 to rescind the varadi to effect his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 name, the defendant refused to do the same and as such, the suit was filed. 5. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed the written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. However, the relationship between the parties was admitted. It was further averred that the parties as well as another brother-Bhadregouda were still minors and they settled and were brought up in the house of their elder sister at Hanchatageri village of Hubli Taluk during which period the brother of the parties i.e. Bhadregouda died, when he was minor. That after attaining the majority, the plaintiff went and settled in the house of another sister at Hanasi village of Navalagund Taluk and that the plaintiff worked as employee for one year and returned to Hanasi village. 6. It is the specific case of the defendant that he purchased item No.1 of suit 8A9 schedule on 25.04.1964 from his own income as well as from the income of his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 wife and it is their self-acquired property. That the sale deed in respect of the said property was executed in his name and that he and the members of his family are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. That on 22.05.1975, the defendant purchased item No.2 of 8A9 schedule property from his income and the income of his wife. That at the time of execution of the sale deed, as the plaintiff intended to purchase a land in Hansasi village and as there was no document of revenue land standing in his name, he requested the defendant to enter his name in the sale deed. The plaintiff assured before the elders of the village that after purchase of land in Hanasi village, he would voluntarily remove his name from the revenue records. Hence, although the item No.2 of the suit property was self-acquired property of the defendant, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the sale deed. Under the said circumstance, subsequently the plaintiff got purchased the land bearing Survey No.281/1 of Hanasi village under registered sale deed in the name of his wife - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 Taravva. That after purchase of the said land, as agreed before the elders and on their advise the plaintiff executed an relinquishment deed on 24.06.1987 in favour of defendant in the presence of elders of the village and also gave a Varadi, which was entered vide No.2065 and an order was effected on 07.08.1978 and since then the defendant, his wife and children are in possession and enjoyment of the property. 7. It is further averred that the suit house property bearing No.84 situated at Hirebudihal village is also the self-acquired property of the defendant purchased from his own income. That the suit is barred by limitation. It is further averred that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and non-inclusion of land bearing Survey No.289/1 and Plot No.408 and 409 in Survey No.322/1+2 situated at Hanasi village of Navalagund Taluk purchased in the name of the wife of the plaintiff. That the defendant is suffering from old-age ailments and taking advantage of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 the same, the plaintiff has filed this suit. Hence, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. Consequent to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged relinquishment deed dated 24.06.1987 executed in respect of Sy.No.102/2 of Hirebudihal is null and void? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit property is joint family properties and purchased in the name of defendant out of income of the joint family? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle ½ share in the suit properties? 4. Whether the defendant proves that Sy.No.102/2 measuring 5 acres 00 guntas of property is self acquired property? 5. Whether the defendant proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of suit properties? 6. Whether the defendant proves that suit is barred by limitation? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 7. What order or decree? 9. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked in evidence. The son of the defendant, who was the GPA holder of the defendant, was examined as DW1 and two witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3. Exs.D1 and D2 were marked in evidence. 10. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022 answered issue No.1 and 2 in the negative, Issue No.4 in the affirmative, issue No.5 in the negative, issue No.6 in the negative and issue No.3 in the negative and accordingly dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel, Sri. Laxman T Mantagani, appearing or the appellant/plaintiff has vehemently contended that the Trial Court has erred in not noticing that the agreement of sale (Ex.P4) in respect of item No.2 of 8A9 schedule as well as the other documents clearly - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 demonstrate that the item No.2 of the suit 8A9 schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and defendant, despite which, the suit has been dismissed. That the Trial Court erred in considering the consent letter (Ex.P16) and the relinquishment deed (Ex.P18) while holding that the plaintiff has no right in the suit item No.2 property. That he defendant has not produced any documents to demonstrate that the suit schedule properties were purchased in his name in his individual capacity. That the relinquishment deed (Ex.P18) is an unregistered document, which is not admissible in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, he seeks for allowing the above appeal and for granting the relief sought for. 12. The respondent/defendant died during the pendency of the above appeal and his legal representatives having been brought on record are served with notice and unrepresented. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 13. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff have been considered, and the materials on record including the records of the Trial Court have been perused. 14. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: <Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff?= 15. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Trial Court framed issue No.6 with regard to limitation. While considering issue No.6, it noticed that the plaintiff having sought for the relief of declaration and partition, Article 59 of the Limitation Act has to be applied and the period of limitation is three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff first become known to him. It is further observed that though the plaintiff contended that he came to know about the change of the documents recently, no evidence was produced to substantiate his - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 version. Further, the admission of PW1 in his evidence that the defendant got the Khata changed on the basis of the sale deed and he was enjoying the properties by paying taxes was noticed and hence, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff had knowledge of the same for more than three years. Hence, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the suit is not within the period of limitation and answered issue No.6 in the affirmative. 16. It is pertinent to state here that admittedly, item No.2 of the suit 8A9 schedule property stood in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant. Item No.1 of the suit 8A9 schedule property and the 8B9 schedule property stood solely in the name of the defendant. Even with regard to item No.2 of suit 8A9 schedule property, as observed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has executed the relinquishment deed (Ex.P18) as well as affixed his signature on the consent letter (Ex.P16/Ex.P8) wherein he agreed for the revenue records of the said suit property to be changed in the name of the defendant. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 17. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P14 was dated 05.06.1967 and the relinquishment deed (Ex.P18) was dated 26.04.1987. It is clear that pursuant to execution of Ex.P18 and Ex.P16, the revenue records have been changed in favour of the defendant in the year 1987 itself. Ex.P18 pertains only to the item No.2 of the suit 8A9 schedule property. 18. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that he is not bound by the relinquishment deed (Ex.P18) as also sought for half share in the property. The limitation to file a suit for declaration is regulated by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, whereunder it is stated that the limitation is three years from when the cause of action first falls due. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is pertinent to note that pursuant to execution of Ex.P18 and Ex.P16 by the plaintiff, the defendant in the year 1987 itself has got the revenue records changed in his name. There is absolutely no averment in the plaint explaining - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 the inordinate delay of more than 30 years in filing the suit. 19. The Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Another Vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and Others3, has held as follows: 28. The other contention that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November, 2014, but that was not a complete knowledge as probably he could read the same subsequently. In dealing with the submission, the appellate Court distinguished between <having knowledge= and <full knowledge= to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation as the limitation would reckon from the date of full knowledge. It is a complete fallacy to make nay distinction between <knowledge= and <full knowledge=. First of all, the limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued and not any subsequent date for the cause of action. According to the plaintiff himself, the cause of action for the suit had arisen much earlier. Secondly, the plaintiff has not pleaded any date on which he acquired complete knowledge 3 Civil Appeal No.5180 of 2025, Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.13456 of 2024, D.D. dated 15.04.2025. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 and that such argument is only an afterthought and appears to be a simple creation of the first appellate Court.= (emphasis supplied) 20. In the present case, consequent to execution of relinquishment deed (Ex.P18) and the signature of the plaintiff on the consent letter (Ex.P16), the revenue records has been changed in favour of the defendant in the year 1987 itself. As already noticed above, there is no averment in the plaint, explaining the inordinate delay of more than 30 years in filing the suit. 21. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the plaintiff was employed and was residing away from the suit property and he was living in another village, as has been rightly noticed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has not produced any document regarding his employment, as also not stated the date on which he returned to his village. It is noticed that PW1 has admitted in the cross- - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 examination that he has been discharged from his services. It is further forthcoming from the records that the plaintiff has returned from his employment prior to purchase of suit item No.2 of 8A9 schedule property. The Trial Court has further noticed that the PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the defendant used to borrow and repay agricultural loan on the property and that PW1 also admitted that the defendant is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of suit 8A9 schedule property. 22. Upon re-appreciation of the material on record, it is clear that the plaintiff has miserably failed in demonstrating that he was entitled to file a suit after an inordinate delay of more than 30 years consequent to the revenue records in respect of item No.2 of the suit 8A9 schedule property having been changed in the name of the defendant pursuant to the plaintiff having executed Ex.P18 and Ex.P16. The plaintiff has not even averred or adduced any evidence with regard adequate reason for inordinate - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 delay of more than 30 years in filing the suit after execution of Ex.P16 and Ex.P18. 23. The Trial Court having recorded the finding that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time, the appellant- plaintiff has failed in demonstrating that the said finding of the Trial Court is in any manner erroneous and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. In view of the above discussion, the question framed for consideration is answered in the 8negative9. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed; ii) The judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022 in O.S. No.46/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kundgol is affirmed; - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10072-DB RFA No. 100308 of 2022 iii) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2