- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI H C NARASIMHAIAH S/O CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A HUJAGUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 105 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY & SRI. H. SOMANATHA, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI H C SIDDAPPA S/O CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A HUJAGUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 105 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N. THIMMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 23.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SIDLAGHATTA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 27.11.2007 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.56/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., AND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) (CONCURRENT CHARGE). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 passed in R.A. No.11/2008 by the learned Itinerary Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, and the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed in O.S. No.56/1999 by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sidlaghatta. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Appeal are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 4. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration and a permanent injunction regarding the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and the defendant are brothers who had divided the properties equally in 1980, except the land bearing Sy.No.1, measuring 4.00 acres situated at Hujagur Village, for the reason that no saguvali chit was issued at the time of division of the properties. A paalupatti was written on 27.07.1980 by the plaintiff and the defendant. It is contended that the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff in the said partition, and since the partition, he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. 5. It is contended that, the defendant in collusion with the Village Accountant has got mutated to the extent of 01 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.64/5A in his name regarding item No.1 property, and the defendant in collusion with Gram Panchayat Officials got made - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 illegal entries showing that plaintiff has only 1/3rd share in item No.2 property, though the entire property was granted to the plaintiff’s share. 6. It is contended that, the defendant having no right, title or interest over the suit properties and is trying to obstruct the cultivation by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 7. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the relationship with the plaintiff and the fact of partition, however, he denied the other averments made in the plaint. It is contended that, the plaintiff has claimed more extent in the suit properties than those mentioned in the partition schedule. In the partition deed dated 27.07.1980, schedule ‘A’ land fell to the share of the plaintiff and schedule ‘B’ land fell to the share of the defendant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 8. It is contended that as per “A” schedule, 03 acres of the land in Sy.No.1 which was granted to the plaintiff’s father, and another 03 acres in Sy.No.1 granted in the name of the plaintiff under Darkasth out of Sy.No.1, and 0-14 guntas of the land in Sy.No.64/5A and a house and vacant space fell to the share of the plaintiff; That, as per “B” schedule, an extent of 04 acres of land in Sy.No.1, an extent of 01 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.64/5A and a house bearing Khaneshumari No.21 and a thrashed field attached to it, fell to the share of the defendant. 9. It is contended that, before the partition, the lands were the joint family properties. It is contended that the land in Sy.No.23/4 measuring 0-22½ guntas is the joint family property and the plaintiff, without the knowledge and consent of the defendant, has sold the same to one Munishamappa on 10.09.1986. It is contended that, the plaintiff, based on the concocted partition schedule, manipulated behind the back of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 the defendant, and is claiming a share in the properties. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 10. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “(i) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference of the defendant? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed in the Plaint? (iv) What Order or Decree?” 11. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, and also examined four witnesses as PW-2 to PW-5, and marked 9 documents as Ex.P- 1 to Ex.P-9. Conversely, the defendant examined himself as DW-1, examined three witnesses as DW-2 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 to DW-4, and marked 13 documents as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-13. 12. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 27.11.2007. 13. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court in O.S. No.56/1999, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.11/2008 on the file of the learned Itinerary Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta. 14. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property? ii. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court warrants interference? iii. What order? 15. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties, and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No. 2 in the negative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court in O.S. No.56/1999 vide judgment dated 23.11.2012. 16. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Heard the arguments of Smt.S.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, and Sri. N. Thimmegowda for the defendant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below have not adequately appreciated the entire evidence on record, and the pleadings of the parties. 19. She submits that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the defendant has unequivocally admitted the partition between two brothers in paragraph No.2 of the written statement. Exhibit P-7, paalupatti do not require any proof in view of the admission of the defendant in paragraph No.2 of the written statement. She also submits that the Courts below ought to have relied upon Exhibit P-7 i.e., ‘A’ schedule of the partition dated 27.07.1980. Since, Exhibit P-7 was marked without any objection, the Courts below should have considered Exhibit P-7. 20. She further submits that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the defendant had contended that there was another partition deed or a paalupatti, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 however, the defendant has produced only a true copy of the same, marked as Exhibit D-12. 21. The defendant never prayed for the adducing of secondary evidence, therefore, the document could not have been considered by the Courts below. She submits that it is nobody’s case that there was no partition between the plaintiff and defendant on 27.07.1980, and what was disputed is whether the partition was as per Exhibit P-7 relied upon by the plaintiff or as per the alleged partition as per Exhibit D-12. It is submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the defendant had given a list of properties allotted to the share of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff pleaded as to how he claimed a right over the suit schedule properties. She submitted that the Court below ought to have considered the report of the handwriting expert. The Trial Court has rejected the report of the handwriting expert. She submitted that if the report of the expert - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 was ignored, there was nothing on record to believe the defence of the defendant. If the report was accepted, then the suit of the plaintiff ought to have been decreed. She also submits that the Trial Court has discarded the evidence of PW-3, and PW-5 in a single sentence. 22. Hence, on these grounds, she submitted that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 23. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant submits that there is no dispute that a partition was effected between plaintiffs and the defendants on 27.07.1980 by dividing the suit schedule properties as Item “A” and “B” Schedules. The “A” schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff and the “B” schedule property fell to the share of the defendant. He submits that the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint about the extent and particulars of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 properties divided in between the plaintiff and defendant. 24. He submits that the entire case of the plaintiff is based on Exhibit P-7. The mutations effected in the name of parties are not based on Exhibit P-7, but the same is based on the oral partition. 25. He submits that Exhibit P-7 had not seen the light of day till it was produced before the Trial Court in the suit. He submits that Exhibit P-7 is a concocted document. He submits that the partition was effected as per Exhibit D-12 and not as per Ex.P-7. 26. The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule ‘B’ property, and both the Courts below have rightly discarded Exhibit P-7. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 suit schedule properties, and the alleged interference. 27. He submits that both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the entire evidence on record and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, are just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 28. This Court, vide order dated 22.06.2016, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Were the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the oral evidence of defendant No.1-DW.1 and the averments made in the written statement with regard to partition? - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 (ii) Were the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in ignoring the material document Ex.P-7 – Partition Deed which depicts that there was a partition? (iii) Were the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” Substantial Question Nos.1 and 2 29. Substantial Question Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 30. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration and a permanent injunction, contending that the plaintiff and defendant are brothers and the suit schedule properties were acquired by the joint family of plaintiff and defendant. The same are divided equally except land bearing Survey No.1 of Hujagur Village to an extent of 04 acres, for the reason that at the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 time of partition, no saguvali chit was issued by the concerned authorities. 31. As per the partition deed effected on 27.07.1980, “A” schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff, and “B” schedule property fell to the share of the defendant. The plaintiff, defendant and the Panchayatdars have signed the paalupatty — said partition. 32. To prove that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff has produced nine documents; Ex.P-1 is the RTC extract of the land bearing Survey No.64/5A, which discloses that the name of the original plaintiff is entered in column No.9 thereof; 33. Exhibit P-2 is the mutation extract which discloses that a partition was effected between the plaintiff and defendant, and based on the said partition, the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 names of the respective parties were entered in the revenue records. 34. From the perusal of Exhibit P-2, it is clear that there is no reference regarding Exhibit P-7 that a partition had been effected between the plaintiff and defendant as per Exhibit P-7. Exhibit P-2 discloses that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant. 35. Exhibit P-3 is Form No.12; it discloses that “A” schedule properties are owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Exhibit P-4 is the Demand Register extract. Exhibit P-5 is the land tax assessment; Exhibit P-6 is the tax paid receipt. Exhibit P-7 is the “A” schedule of the partition deed dated 27.07.1980; Exhibit P-8 is a certified copy of the order passed in R.A. No.115 1999-2000; Exhibit P-9 is the endorsement issued by the Sub Registrar, Siddalaghatta. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 36. The plaintiff, apart from examining himself as PW-1, had also examined four witnesses as PW-2 to 5. 37. PW-1, during the course of cross-examination, has denied that the Cultivation Certificate was issued regarding Survey No.1 measuring 04 acres in 1995; however, he stated that the Cultivation Certificate was issued in the name of the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that the Land bearing Survey No.1 was allotted to the plaintiff on 07.01.1995 after division. He also denied the suggestion that Exhibit P-7 was created. 38. He deposed that the plaintiff had filed a complaint before Kasaba Police station against the defendant for interfering with the possession of the suit properties. He admits his signature on the first page of the plaint, and the signature on the “A” schedule of the paalupatti. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 39. It is stated that he has filed another case in the other Court in Shidlaghatta regarding 4 acres of land in Survey No. 1, and the case number is O.S. No.57/1999. It is denied that the defendant had filed an application before Shidlaghatta Tahsildar to change the Khata of the properties, and that he had given a statement consenting to the same. PW1 denied that he gave a statement before the Revenue Authorities to change the khata of the properties in the name of the defendant. 40. The plaintiff also examined one witness M. Ramaiah, as PW-2, who deposed that he knows the plaintiff and defendants. He stated that about 20 years ago, a Panchayat was held between the plaintiff and defendant regarding the division of the properties, and he was present along with Munegowda and venkataramappa in the panchayat. Most of the properties were divided in the presence of PW-2, and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 the other panchayat members and accordingly, a partition was reduced into writing. 41. In the said partition, Schedule “A” and “B” were prepared, and the properties shown in Schedule “A” fell to the share of the plaintiff, and ‘B’ schedule to the defendant, and the document at Exhibit P-7 is marked, and his signature is marked as Exhibit P7(d). 42. During the course of his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember exactly as to whether the draft copy mentioned in his chief examination was written by PW-2 or Munegowda, and that he cannot say who wrote Exhibit P-7 and Exhibit D-1. Venkataramappa had affixed his signature in Kannada, and Munegowda had affixed his signature in English, but he could not tell the survey number and extent of the properties that fell to the share of the plaintiff and defendant, and as to when the division was made. He stated that, he is - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 unable to say in whose name 04 acres of khushki land in Survey No.1 stood. He admitted that he is the President of APMC, and that he is a supporter of Congress party. 43. The plaintiff, also examined another witness i.e., Devaraj, as PW-3, who stated that the plaintiff is in possession of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property since from 20 years, and there is a boundary between the land of plaintiff and defendant, and Item No.2 of the suit schedule property is 50 feet measuring north-south and 20 feet measuring east- west, and it is bounded by a Government road to the East, a Government Gomala to the West, a passage to the North and a vacant site owned by S.Vasanthappa to the south. He states that the plaintiff has been in possession of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property for 15 years. 44. During the course of cross-examination of PW-3, he deposed that he is not aware that the plaintiff and his - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 children have made a statement before the revenue authorities. He pleads ignorance that his father and some others have filed a suit in O.S. No.373/1975 against the defendant, before the Chintamani Court. 45. The plaintiff examined one more witness i.e., Dasappa, as PW-4, who deposed in the same line as that of PW-2 and PW-3. 46. In the course of his cross-examination, he has pleaded ignorance regarding the transactions between plaintiff and defendant, and that he was not present when the plaintiff and defendant divided and as to what properties fell to the share of the defendant. It stated that the defendant filed a criminal case against him and seven others in C.C.No.142/1997. He pleads ignorance that the defendant's wife had filed a suit against the brother of PW-4, i.e. Thimmaiah, in O.S. No.134/1997. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 47. The plaintiff examined Sri Munishamappa as PW-5. He deposed that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of 35 guntas of land for 20 years, and insofar as Item No. 2 of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is in possession, and he has tied cattle in the said property. 48. In rebuttal, the defendant—H. C. Siddappa was examined as DW-1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. It is stated that a partition was effected between the plaintiff and defendant in 1995 and Exhibit D-12 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant. He has stated that there is no partition effected as contended by the plaintiff, as per Exhibit P-7. 49. During the course of cross examination of DW-1, it is elicited that the suit schedule “B” property fell to the share of the defendant as per Exhibit D-12. The plaintiff has also his affixed signature on Exhibit D- 12. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 50. The Defendant has examined one H. M. Muniraju as DW-2, who deposed that the plaintiff and defendant are the brothers and they have been living separately for about 20 years and have divided the properties 20 years ago. Item No.1 of the property in question is 01 acre 25 guntas of land which is in possession of the defendant, and two parts in Item No.2 property fell to the share of the defendant, and one part fell to the share of the plaintiff. 51. The defendant also examined another witness, K.S.Nagaraj as DW-3, who deposed in the same terms as that of DW-2. 52. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record produced by the parties to the suit, it is amply clear that the entire case of the plaintiff depends on Exhibit P-7. However, the execution of Exhibit P-7 is denied by the defendant. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove the execution of Exhibit P-7. Further, there is no - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 reference to Exhibit P-7 in Exhibit P-2, the Mutation Register extract. The mutation was based on the partition, but there is no reference to Exhibit P-7 in it. 53. It is pertinent to note that Exhibit P-7 had not seen the light of day till the same was produced before the Trial Court. It creates a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the execution of Exhibit P-7 in 1980, as Exhibit P-2, i.e., the mutation order was passed on 18.05.1992. It is clear that the parties have not acted on Exhibit P.7. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of Exhibit P-7. 54. Thus, both the Courts below were justified in ignoring Exhibit P-7 on the ground that the plaintiff has created the said document at the time of filing the instant suit. Although the defendant has stated in the written statement regarding the partition, but the said partition is not the same. The reference made by the defendant in the written statement regarding the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 partition is with reference to Exhibit D-12, and not regarding Exhibit P-7. 55. PW-2 has stated that Exhibit P-7 was executed on the day of partition. The said document is unregistered, and the same is inadmissible in evidence. As such, both the Courts below have rightly ignored Exhibit P-7, and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. 56. The plaintiff has not adduced evidence as to whether the other lands granted in favour of the plaintiff is before 1980. Admittedly, the suit land was granted in favour of the defendant in 1981, and the mutation was effected in 1992. Based on Exhibit P-2, the parties have not acted upon. 57. The plaintiff has filed a suit for a declaration and a permanent injunction. The burden is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove his case based on the - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. 58. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 937, at paragraph 22, has held as follows: “22. A family settlement is based generally on the assumption that there was an antecedent title of some kind in the purchase and the arrangement acknowledges and defines what that title was. In a family settlement-cum- partition, the parties may define the shares in the joint property and may either choose to divide the property by metes and bounds or may continue to live together and enjoy the property as common. So far as this case is concerned, Ex.A1 is totally silent as to whose share the suit land will fall and who will enjoy it. Needless to say that the burden is on the plaintiff to explain away those factors, but the plaintiff has not succeeded. On other hand, much emphasis has been placed on - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 the failure on the part of the defendants to show that the applicability of the GLR. The defendant maintained the stand that the entries made in GLR, maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, in the regular course of administration of the cantonment lands, are admissible in evidence and the entries made therein will prevail over the records maintained under the various enactment, like the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record of Rights Rules, 1956 etc. In order to establish that position, reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148, Union of India & Ors. v. Kamla Verma (2010) 13 SCC 511, Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 555 and Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Andhra Circle, Secundrabad v. Mohd. Mohiuddin & Ors. (2003) 12 SCC 315. Both, the trial Court and the High Court made a detailed exercise to find out - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 whether the GLR Register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 and the entries made there under will have more evidentiary value than the Revenue records made by the Survey Department of the State Government. In our view, such an exercise was totally unnecessary. Rather than finding out the weakness of GLR, the Courts ought to have examined the soundness of the plaintiff case. We reiterate that the plaintiff has to succeed only on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the case set up by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and possession.” (emphasis supplied) 59. Both the Courts below have rightly considered the entire evidence on record, and held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendant. Hence, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is not - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 entitled to the relief of a declaration and a permanent injunction. 60. In view of the above discussion, I answer Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. Substantial Question of Law No.3: 61. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties, mainly based on the records produced by both the parties. 62. The Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and the First Appellate Court has rightly confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. 63. In view of the above discussion, I answer Substantial Questions of Law No.3 in the affirmative. 64. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24314 RSA No. 460 of 2013 ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed; (ii) The judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (iii) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: KVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16