- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.161 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI T.D. PRASAD S/O. LATE T.K. DIVAKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/1, LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, MARAPPANAPALYA, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 022. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANAGHA J. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY V. S/O. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.75, MEDARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BENGALURU-560 090. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY V., ADVOCATE - SERVED) * * * THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.5373/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.5373/2013, wherein plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration and injunction and in the alternate possession, is dismissed by the court below. The said judgment is under challenge. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under, The plaintiff is claiming title over the suit schedule property described as a vacant residential site bearing Site No.28, Katha No.47, situated at Medarahalli Village, Abbigere Panchayat, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 Taluk. The plaintiff asserts that the property now falls within Ward No.12 of Bangalore North Taluk and measures East to West 22 feet and North to South 35 feet. The plaintiff traces title to the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 24.10.1996 executed by one Kempaiah, represented through his GPA holder, Smt. K.T. Ladhiga, wife of late T.K. Divakar. 4. The plaintiff has categorically pleaded that on 19.07.2013, upon noticing some construction activity on the suit schedule property, he visited the site on 20.07.2013 and objected to the same. He further alleges that the defendant, taking advantage of his political influence and with the support of his associates, commenced construction without obtaining any sanction. The plaintiff asserts that he was unable to resist the unauthorized construction and alleges that the defendant’s actions are aimed at illegally dispossessing him and usurping his property. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 injunction or, in the alternative, possession of the suit schedule property. 5. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint. The defendant specifically disputed the plaintiff's title and characterized the documents relied on by the plaintiff as fabricated. Asserting his own claim, the defendant contended that the suit property forms part of lands bearing Sy.Nos.35/2, 37, and 16, which were Jodi Inamathi lands originally granted to his ancestors. It is his case that pursuant to a family partition, the suit schedule property was allotted to him. The defendant claimed to have demolished an old structure and constructed a new building on the said site. He denied the plaintiff’s possession and produced documents such as electricity and water bills to support his contention that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 6. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The trial court, upon evaluation of the evidence, answered Issues 1 to 4 in the negative and held that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title, possession, and the alleged act of interference by the defendant. As regards Issue No.4, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had not proved that the construction undertaken by the defendant was unauthorized. Consequently, in light of the findings on title and possession, the trial court answered Issue No.6 in the negative, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession, and accordingly dismissed the suit. 7. Learned counsel Ms. Anagha J. Prakash, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. She submitted that the plaintiff has produced a registered sale deed evidencing acquisition of title from the original owner Kempaiah and contended that the trial court erred in discarding the said document. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 8. Placing reliance on Exs.P1, P2, P4, and P5, learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff not only produced the title deed but also supporting documents such as tax paid receipts and the khatha standing in the name of the vendor Kempaiah. She submitted that these documents collectively establish the plaintiff's title and possession. Criticizing the findings of the trial court, she contended that the court erred in ignoring Ex.P3 — the registered sale deed and its conclusions suffer from legal perversity. She emphasized that the defendant, during cross- examination, admitted to having constructed a residential house on the suit schedule property, thereby corroborating the plaintiff’s claim of interference. 9. Despite issuance of notice by this Court, the defendant has not chosen to appear or contest the appeal. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on careful consideration of the pleadings and the oral - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 and documentary evidence available on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: i. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the suit schedule property, particularly in the face of Ex.P3 — the registered sale deed dated 24.10.1996 executed by the original owner Kempaiah? ii. Whether the trial court was justified in holding, while answering Issue No.4, that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had carried out unauthorized construction on the suit schedule property? iii. What order? FINDINGS ON POINT Nos.1 and 2: 11. The plaintiff claims title to a vacant site bearing Khata No.47, Site No.28, situated within the jurisdiction of Ward No.12, Bangalore North Taluk. In support of his title, the plaintiff has relied upon a registered sale deed dated 24.10.1996, executed by one Kempaiah through his General Power of Attorney holder, Smt. K.T. Ladhiga. The sale deed is marked as Ex.P.3. However, upon a closer and critical examination of the contents of the schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 appended to Ex.P.3, this Court finds significant gaps in the evidentiary foundation of the plaintiff’s claim. Though a registered sale deed may prima facie evidence transfer of title, it does not, by itself, establish the origin or validity of the vendor’s title, especially when the vendor’s ownership is not substantiated by contemporaneous title documents or revenue or panchayat records. In the present case, while Ex.P.3 refers to Site No.28 and Khata No.47, there is a conspicuous absence of any supporting documentation that demonstrates how this site came into existence, from which survey number it was formed, and more importantly, how Kempaiah acquired title to the same. 12. Though the plaintiff has produced stray tax-paid receipts and khata extracts, none of these documents are corroborated by foundational records maintained by the Gram Panchayat. In particular, the Gram Panchayat records that would have reflected the mutation of property into the name of Kempaiah ostensibly by inheritance or otherwise are not placed on record. The plaintiff has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 neither pleaded nor proved the specific survey number from which Site No.28 was carved out. This omission goes to the root of the matter, as the very identity and existence of the suit schedule property remains ambiguous in the absence of any linkage to a parent survey number. Mere reference to a site number and a khata number, without establishing the foundational origin of such property, is insufficient in a suit for declaration of title. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff attempted to argue that the identification of the suit property is not in dispute, pointing to an alleged admission by the defendant during cross-examination regarding construction on the suit schedule property. However, this Court, upon independent and careful evaluation of the defendant’s evidence, particularly his cross-examination, finds that the defendant has remained consistent with his pleadings. The defendant has categorically asserted that the construction undertaken by him is located in Sy.No.35/2, and not on Site No.28. In support of his claim, he has produced - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 various documents, including tax receipts, electricity bills, and other corroborative materials. While these documents may not definitively negate the plaintiff’s claim, they do lend weight to the defendant’s stand that the construction activity undertaken by him is on land that is distinct from what the plaintiff alleges to be Site No.28. 14. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies entirely upon the plaintiff to establish his title with legal certainty. It is a settled principle of law that in a title suit, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s defence. In the present case, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to not only trace his title through the sale deed executed by Kempaiah but also substantiate how Kempaiah acquired lawful title over the property in question. No records have been placed on file to indicate that Kempaiah’s name was mutated in the revenue or panchayat records by way of inheritance or otherwise. In the absence of such foundational documents, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff remains an uncorroborated piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, vest title. 15. The core issue that arises for determination is the identification, existence, and legal origin of Site No.28 bearing Khata No.47. Although the sale deed refers to Ward No.12, it is pertinent to note that the original records of the suit property pertain to the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. However, the plaintiff has not placed on record any document to demonstrate the conversion or transition of the site from its parent survey number into a residential site with a designated khata. In the absence of such material, the identity and location of the suit schedule property remain vague and unsubstantiated. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving his title in accordance with law. The findings recorded by the trial Court, particularly while answering Issue No.4 in the negative, do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26185 RFA No. 161 of 2023 The trial Court has correctly held that the plaintiff’s title remains unestablished, and that the claim for declaration and consequential reliefs cannot be granted solely on the basis of an uncorroborated sale deed. The judgments relied upon by the plaintiff’s counsel are clearly distinguishable and do not apply to the factual matrix of the present case. Therefore, point nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly answered in the negative. Finding on point No. 3: 16. In the light of the findings recorded on point Nos. 1 and 2, the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SD,ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38