- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.78 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT BASAMMANI W/O LATE K.C.KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SRI. K. PRAKASHA S/O LATE K.C.K.KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. K. SUNANDA S/O LATE K.C.K.KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. K. YOGENDRA S/O LATE K.C.K.KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. K. GEETHA D/O LATE K.C.K.KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KATNAVADI VILLAGE, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 442. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI T PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 AND: 1. B MURTHY S/O LATE BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT KATNAVADI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 442. 2. THE SECRETARY KESTHURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, KESTHURU, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 441. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.N.SOMASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2019 PASSED IN RA No.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., AT CHAMARAJANAGAR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S No.76/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT YELANDUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri T.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K.N.Somashekara, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.76/2011 dated 07.01.2017 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelandur, filed for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the following properties, hereinafter referred to as 8suit property9.= =ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ j.r.AiÀļÀAzÀÆgÀÄ ¸À¨ï.r.UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÀlߪÁr UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå 80gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¥ÀÆ-¥À 40 Cr, G-zÀ 38 Cr «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÉÌ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢: ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ : 79£Éà ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : 81£Éà ¤ªÉñÀ£À GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : gÀ¸ÉÛ zÀQëtPÉÌ : 77£Éà ¤ªÉñÀ£À F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ªÀiÁvÀæ. = 3. Dismissal of the suit was challenged in R.A.14/2017. Learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar, by the judgment dated 24.07.2019 dismissed the appeal, on re- appreciation of the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court. 5. After hearing the parties, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court framed following substantial questions of law: <(i) Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court could have dismissed the suit for declaration after recording a finding that K.C.Kempanna9s name was found in the list of beneficiaries and that defendant No.1 had tried to create documents in his name? (ii) Whether the Appellate Court could have dismissed the suit in its entirety after having come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved their title to the suit property?= 6. Sri T.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that name of K.C.Kempanna who is the husband of first appellant and father of remaining appellants was found in the beneficiary list which was meant for allotment of Ashraya houses under 8Ashraya Scheme9. 7. He would further contend that, clandestinely, defendant No.1-Murthy in utter collusion with government officials created a letter in his favour, though his name was also found in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 beneficiary list had the double benefit, one in his own name and another by creating fabricated documents in the name of Kempanna who was beneficiary under the list by inserting the name of defendant No.1-Murthy and thus resulted in grave injustice which necessitated the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court. 8. He also contended that, suit on contest came to be dismissed holding that plaintiffs do not possess any legal right to seek for declaratory relief in respect of the suit property as they were only a short listed members in the beneficiary list prepared by the second defendant which is incorrect. 9. Further, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that both the Courts did not appreciate that the name of defendant No.1-Murthy was also found in the beneficiary list. But clandestinely said Murthy got removed the name of Kempanna and created a document that suit site is allotted to him which has been ignored by both the Courts while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and sought for allowing the appeal by answering substantial question of law in favour of appellants. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 10. Per contra, Sri K.N.Somashekara, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Addl. Government Advocate supports the impugned judgment. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, except the name of Kempanna being found in the list of beneficiaries, there is no formal allotment of the suit property made in the name of Kempanna at any given point of time. 13. Unless the formal allotment takes place pursuant to the beneficiary list, right of the plaintiffs to seek for declaratory relief by way of a title to suit property would not fructify itself. 14. At the most, the beneficiary list is only a proposal by local /competent authorities to the Government for allotting the suit site in favour of Sri Kempanna. 15. In the absence of any allotment of the suit property made by the competent authority under the Ashraya Scheme, only on the ground that name of Kempanna was found in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 beneficiary list would not ipso facto create a right in the plaintiffs or Kempanna to seek for declaratory relief that suit property belongs to Kempanna as a owner. 16. Mischief if any committed by the defendant No.1-Murthy in creating or concocting the documents whereby Kempanna is deceived of getting a site allotted in his name, remedy lies elsewhere and not the civil suit that too for the relief of declaration. 17. In the absence of any legal right that has been possessed by the plaintiffs, dismissal of suit by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper. 18. With regard to the first substantial question of law framed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to supra by Order dated 17.03.2020, the said question is based on factual aspect and no legal issue is involved. 19. Accordingly, the same is answered against the plaintiffs having regard to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38326 RSA No. 78 of 2020 20. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, since the plaintiffs failed to establish the legal right to the suit property and name of the plaintiffs being found in the list of beneficiaries would not confer any title to the suit property, same is also to be answered against the plaintiffs. 21. Accordingly, substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants/plaintiffs. 22. Consequently, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) However, appellants/plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of deceased Kempanna are at liberty to reapply for allotment of house site under Ashraya Scheme if all eligible criteria are met with. (iv) If any such application is filed, second respondent is at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the said application. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82