- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100247 OF 2014 (DEC-) BETWEEN: 1. HASIMSAB S/O. GOUSUSAB KIRAWADI, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUSANUR, TQ:HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. NAMAJAMIYA S/O. GOUSUSAB KIRAWADI, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUSANUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 3. ABDULKHADARSAB S/O. GOUSUSAB KIRAWADI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUSANUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 4. IMAMSAB S/O. GOUSUSAB KIRAWADI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUSANUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 5. NANNESAB S/O. GOUSUSAB KIRAWADI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.09 15:53:43 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 R/O. KUSANUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 6. SMT. BADDEBI W/O. HAJARESAB DESAI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 7. SMT. FATIMABI /O. HUSAINSAB AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KODIHALLI, TQ: SORAB DIST: SHIMOGA. 8. SMT. AMEENABI W/O. MANNENAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KAGINELE, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. N. BANAKAR & SRI. LINGESH V. KATTIMANI, ADVS) AND: 1. ABDULKHADARSAB S/O. MADARSAB MATTEKHANAVAR, SINCE DIED ON 06.03.2015 SICNE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1a. SMT. FATIMABI W/O. ABDULKHADARSAB MATTEKHANAVAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HAVANAGI, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581102. 1b. SRI. GOUSEMOHIDDIN S/O. ABDULKHADARSAB MATTEKHANAVAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 R/O. HAVANAGI, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI – 581102. 2. ABDUL RAHEEM S/O. MADARSAB MATTEKHANAVAR, AGE: 74 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KUSANUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 3. NAJEERSAB S/O MADARSAB MATTEKHANAVAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. KUSANUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 4. BABUSAB S/O. MADARSAB MATTEKHANAVAR, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KUSANUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (R1- "DECEASED"; R1(A) AND R1(B) SERVED; SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV., FOR R2 TO R4) -------- THIS RSA FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A. NO.32/2012 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HANGAL, DATED 07.03.2014 AND TO RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HANGAL IN O.S.NO.99/2008 DATED 16.10.2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014 in R.A.No.32/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hanagal (for short “the First Appellate Court”, setting aside the judgment and the decree dated 16.10.2012 in O.S.No.99/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hanagal (for short “the Trial Court”), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was belonged to their father-Goususab Kirawadi, and the father of the plaintiffs had permitted the father of the defendants to reside in the suit schedule property on permissive basis and as the father of the plaintiff died long ago and as such the plaintiffs made claim for the suit schedule property, however, the same was denied by the defendants. It - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendants have illegally entered their names in the occupants column in respect of the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.99/2008 before the Trial Court seeking relief of declaration of title and possession. 3.1. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. 3.2. It is the specific case of the defendants that one Mardansab, who was the grandfather of the defendants, was the original owner of the property in question and he had two sons viz., Imamsab and Madarsab. Therefore, it is the case of the defendants that after the demise of their father, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly, denied the averments made in the plaint that the defendants were in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and as such sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.3. Based on pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 case, plaintiffs have examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Defendants have examined one witness as DW1 and got marked 18 documents and same were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D18. 3.4. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment dated 16.10.2012 decreed the suit and as such directed the defendants to handover possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.32/2012 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014 allowed the appeal and as such, set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.99/2008 and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 4. Heard Sri. S. N. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 5. The learned counsel contends that the Trial Court after appreciating the material on record has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and same was not considered by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 First Appellate Court in the right perspective despite the fact that the defendants were in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and further, he contended that, the plaintiffs have established their right over the suit schedule property by producing Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and same has not been considered by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. 6. The respondents are served but remained absent. 7. Having taken note of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court in O.S.No.99/2008, wherein the Trial Court held that the plantiffs have proved that they were the absolute owners of the suit property and in this regard, perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court at Issue No.1 would makes it clear that the Trial Court has relied upon the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, the Village Panchayath Extract for the year 1976-1987, 1988-1991 and 2004-2005 and has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have to be declared as the owners of the suit schedule property. In the backdrop of these aspects, on careful - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 examination of the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court at Point Nos.1 to 4 makes it clear that Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the house tax extracts of the property in question and Ex.P8 is the tax paid receipt in respect of the suit schedule property, which is in the name of the defendants and since the suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaratory relief, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to produce all the relevant documents to establish their right over the suit schedule property. Taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs have not produced any title documents except few tax paid receipts to establish their right in respect of the suit schedule property and in view of the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of Hullappa v. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4958 wherein it is stated that in a suit for declaration, the plaintiffs have to prove their title in respect of the suit schedule property by producing the relevant documents of title and in the absence of same, it is held that, Civil Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of tax paid receipts or some communication or letters. In that view of the matter, since the revenue record is not a document of title, I am of the considered opinion that, the First Appellate Court has rightly interfered with the finding recorded - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14 RSA No. 100247 of 2014 by the Trial Court in O.S.No.99/2008 and as such the plaintiffs have not produced any document of title to prove their title in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal, as the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28