- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100487 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: BHIMAPPA S/O YALLAPPA SARAPUR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADERHATTI, TQ: MUDALGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. … APPELLANT (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SADASHIV S/O RAMAPPA SARAPUR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADERHATTI, TQ: MUDALGI, DIST: BALAGAVI-590 001. 2. SMT. DEEPA W/O YALLALING SARAPUR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: WADERHATTI, TQ: MUDALGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. SUBHASHCHANDRA S/O SIDDAPPA SARAPUR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADERHATTI, TQ: MUDALGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY KUM. SONU SUHEL, AMICUS CURIAE.) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2023, PASSED IN O.S.NO.894/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2023, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, in O.S.No.894/2022, thereby, the suit filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is owner and having title to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties is dismissed. 2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Yallappa is the propositus who was the owner of the suit schedule properties who has three children namely Bhimappa, Ramappa and Siddappa. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendants are owners of suit schedule properties. It is stated that in the year 1979 there was partition among - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 three brothers namely Bhimapa, Ramppa and Siddappa. Bhimappa is the plaintiff and Ramappa is defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 and 3 are the children of Siddappa. Accordingly as per partition effected in the year 1979, the same was reported to the revenue authorities and accordingly the same is recorded as mutation entry No.10312. Therefore, as per this, the plaintiff has acquired 1/3rd share out of total extent of suit schedule properties. Therefore, filed suit for declaration. 4. Though the defendants have appeared through advocate, but did not file the written statement and the defendants have not at all contested the suit by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.18. Since there was no written statement, hence there is no question of framing issues and hence the trial Court has framed the point for consideration, which reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed?” 6. This is the only point for consideration framed by the trial Court. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the reason that the plaintiff has not produced title deeds and has only produced M.E.No.10312, which is not sufficient to prove the title of the plaintiff. The trial Court has observed that no person can acquire title to any property by partition. It only recognizes the existing right and hence no right springs from partition or partition deed; therefore, opined that only on the basis of the revenue records title cannot be declared and accordingly dismissed the suit. Further observed that the plaintiff cannot take advantage of weakness of the defendants. Therefore, with observation that the plaintiff has not produced any title deeds, dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has preferred appeal by raising various grounds - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 and the learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff submitted that there was partition in the family of plaintiff and defendants in the year 1979 and thus the plaintiff has acquired 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the right is emanated from the partition of the year 1979 and for proving this, mutation entry in M.E.No.10312 is produced, but the trial Court has not believed this document. Further submitted that where a family is holding land for decades together, say for more than 40-50 years, for long period of time and if partition takes place, then there could not be chances of availability of title document. Therefore, long standing entries in the record of rights without any rival claim over the properties, prove the fact that the plaintiff and defendants are owners by virtue of revenue records and that is involved in the present suit. Therefore, this is lost sight by the trial Court, resulting into erroneous judgment and decree dismissing the suit. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and decree the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 8. Though notices were served on the respondents, but they remained absent and one among the respondents is a woman. Therefore, as per section 13 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, learned counsel one Kumari Sonu Suhel is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P.18 mutation entry in M.E.No.10312. He has not produced any other documents to prove his title. Therefore, justified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Upon hearing the arguments of both the sides and perusal of the records and the appeal papers, the following points would arise for my consideration in this appeal. i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, long standing entries of name in the revenue - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 records/RTCs prove the title of the plaintiff in the absence of any other title deeds? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that there was partition in the year 1979 as per wardi given to the revenue authorities and it was effected as M.E.No.10312, thus the plaintiff has acquired 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties? iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires any interference by this Court? 10. The plaintiff is claiming his right through Ex.P.18 certified copy of mutation entry No.10312 and that in the year 1979 there was partition in the family of plaintiff and defendants and accordingly the same was reported to the revenue authorities and accordingly it was effected and recognized 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. Ex.P.18 is the M.E.No.10312 showing the Sy.No.532/3/2, Sy.No.533/3/2, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 Sy.No.534/3/2. This M.E.No.10312 is effected on 11.07.1979. In this mutation entry it is stated that there was partition in the family of plaintiff and defendants and accordingly as per the report given to the revenue authorities, entries were made partitioning three parts in the suit schedule properties. There is no rebuttal evidence by the defendants to this effect. 11. Subsequently these lands were renumbered as Sy.No.311/3/2, 310/3 and R.S.No.312/3/2. Ex.P.4 to P.6 are the RTC extracts showing the old survey numbers for the year 1964-65 onwards. Ex.P.1, P.2 and P.3 are the RTC extracts from the year 1920-21 onwards showing that the plaintiff and defendants are owners of the property by mentioning new survey numbers as above stated. The plaintiff has only produced the above said revenue records for proving his title. The defendants have not filed the written statement and have not contested the suit. But the trial Court has dismissed the suit and in the appeal filed by the plaintiff also the defendants are arrayed as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 respondents who are remained absent. Therefore, there is no contest to the suit filed by the plaintiff. 12. Just because the defendants remained absent and have not contested, that cannot be a ground to decree the suit in toto. But the plaintiff shall have to establish his title and ownership on all its preponderance of probabilities. It is true that mere entries in the revenue records do not prove title of the parties over the immovable properties. But, just because supporting title documents are not produced and only revenue records are placed, that alone is not a ground to reject the claim of the plaintiff. Where there are long standing entries of names in the revenue records, such as in the record of rights and mutation entry records etc., that could be also recognized as the plaintiff is owner of the properties and in possession. Where the family holds properties from generation to generation and if there is partition, then, there cannot be chances of availability of the original document of title, such as sale, gift, order of grant etc., - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 but however if there is long standing entries decades together showing the names of parties as owner and cultivator in the revenue records, they are to be treated as proving the title of the plaintiff in the absence of any other rebuttal/contra evidence. 13. Therefore, some times the entries in the revenue records also prove the ownership or title over the property in the absence of any other contra evidence. If there is rival claim, then, mere entries in the records do not constitute the title. The rival claim must be genuine claim and therefore if there is no any genuine rival claim, and if the plaintiff claims to be in possession over the property, by virtue of partition took place before many decades of time, then it can be said that on all its probabilities the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property. Therefore, some times as in the present case, in the absence of any other rival claim to the entries made in the records in the name of plaintiff also prove that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 14. Therefore, considering this principle in the factual background as discussed and provided on record as per Ex.P.18, the mutation entry in M.E.No.10312 dated 11.07.1979, there was partition in the family and accordingly the plaintiff’s name is shown in the said entry as he has acquired 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Also Ex.P.1 to P.13 RTC extracts prove the fact that there was long standing entry of name of plaintiff and defendants which also probabalize the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule properties to the extent of 1/3rd. Therefore, just because title documents such as sale deed, gift deed, etc., are not produced, the suit could not be dismissed blindly by observing that only revenue records are produced. 15. Therefore, appearance of name of parties in the revenue records for long spell of time and if there is no any other genuine rival claim, then the entry in the records could be considered as also thing of proving the fact of ownership over the properties. Based on these - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 documents as above discussed and for the reasons stated supra, the plaintiff has proved the fact that he is owner of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly I answer points No.1 to 3 in the affirmative. 16. This Court appreciates the good assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae to the Court in disposing of the case effectively. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasoning on the points for consideration, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 16.09.2023, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, in O.S.No.894/2022, is set aside. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8763 RFA No. 100487 of 2023 iii) The suit in O.S.No.894/2022 is decreed. iv) The plaintiff is declared that he is owner and holding title to 1/3rd extent of properties in all the suit schedule properties. v) The plaintiff shall work out his getting 1/3rd extent of share in appropriate proceedings. vi) The High Court Legal Service Authority, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad, shall pay the fees of Amicus Curiae, as per rules. vii) No order as to costs. viii) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33