- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.892 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. GRAMA PANCHAYATH LAKKAVALLI LAKAVALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHYATH, LAKAVALLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577228. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHESH A.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. T. GOVINDASWAMY S/O K. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577228. 2. K.T.MANJUNATH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 2(a). K. SRINATH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 2(a)(1). SMT. SUDHARANI W/O LATE K. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 2(a)(2). K. S. RANGANATH S/O LATE K. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2(b). K. RANGANATH @ K. GOPINATH S/O LATE K.T. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2(c). K. DWARAKNATH S/O LATE K.T. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO. 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2) 2(b) AND 2(c) ARE RA/T OPPOSITE MAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL WATER TANK ROAD, LAKKAVALLI LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE & POST TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577228. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD BENGALURU -560001. 4. K.T.KRISHNASWAMY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 4(a). SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O LATE K.T. KRISHNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 4(b). SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE K.T. KRISHNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4(a) AND 4(b) ARE RA/T OPPOSITE MAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL WATER TANK ROAD LAKKAVALLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE AND POST TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577228. 4(c). RAJASHEKHAR K. S/O LATE K.T. KRISHNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT "SINDHU"1ST FLOOR, MAMAKARA APARTMENT, KASHIPURA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. 5. K.R. ASHWATH S/O LATE K.T.RAMASWAMY MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT WATER TANK ROAD, LAKKAVALLI,TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 228. 6. K.R. NAGESH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 6(a). SMT. SAVITHA K.S. S/O LATE K.R. NAGASH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 6(b). DUSHYANTH YADAV K.N. S/O LATE K.R. NAGASH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 6(c). DEEKSHA K.N. D/O LATE K.R. NAGASH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R-6(a) TO R6(c) ARE R/O LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE & POST TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMANAGALORE DISTRICT -577228. 7. K.T. RANGASWAMY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 7(a). SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE K.T. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 7(b). SATHYANARAYANA K., W/O LATE K.T. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. Page No.3 replaced & retyped vide Chambers Order dated 16.04.2026 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 R7(a) & 7(b) ARE R/AT OPPOSITE MAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL WATER TANK ROAD, LAKAVALLI LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE & POST TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALORE - 577228. 8. K.T.NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE K.THIMMAIAH MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT WATER TANK ROAD, LAKKAVALLI,TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT./SRI. PHILOMENA ROSS, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R3; SMT./SRI. GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND ALSO FOR R2(a)(1) & R2(a)(2), R2(b) AND R2(c), R4 (a) TO (c), R5, R6(a) TO R6(c) AND R7(a) AND (b); V/O DATED 10.08.2023 R8 IS DELETED FROM ARRAY OF CAUSE TITLE.) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.78/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2004 PASSED IN OS.NO.74/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.) TARIKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 in RA.No.78 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru, Page No.4 replaced & retyped vide Chambers Order dated 16.04.2026 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 the I Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2004 in O.S.No.74 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Tarikere, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaint averments are that, plaintiff No.1 claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that, the father of plaintiff No.1- K.Thimmaiah inherited the suit schedule property from his ancestors, and in this regard, the extract of the Khata maintained by the Panchayat during the year 1939-40 shows the right, title and possession of the father of the plaintiff No.1 over the suit schedule property. After the death of father of the plaintiff No.1, in the year 1964, plaintiff No.1 and his brothers - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 inherited the said property. It is also stated in the plaint that, on account of the family arrangement between plaintiff No.1 and his brothers, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of plaintiff No.1 and therefore, plaintiff No.1 has filed a suit against defendants, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction as well as the mandatory injunction. It is also stated that the Mandala Panchayat has passed a Resolution granting possession and ownership of the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.1 and therefore, declaration has been sought in the suit. It is also stated that plaintiff No.1 has filed OS.No.62 of 1993 before the Civil Judge, Tarikere against defendant No.1, seeking relief of mandatory injunction and the said suit came to be rejected on the ground that plaintiff No.1 therein, has not complied with the provisions contained under Section 80 of the Code of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 Civil Procedure read with Section 295 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and therefore, sought for relief of declaration with regard to the suit schedule property. 4. After service of notice, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the title of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 has contested the matter by stating that the Khata in respect of the subject land was illegally made in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and thereafter, the same was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, who intervened and rectified the records by removing the plaintiffs’ name from the Khata and the same was rectified. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that, the claim made by the plaintiffs is based on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 revenue records and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The notice issued to defendant No.2 was served and he remained absent and accordingly placed ex-parte. 6. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has formulated the issues and additional issues for its consideration. 7. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined 03 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and produced 18 documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Defendants have examined 01 witness as DW.1 and produced 9 documents and same were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9. 8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 24.02.2004, decreed the suit holding that, plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has filed RA.No.78 of 2013 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.74 of 1995. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. 9. This Court vide order dated 21.06.2016, formulated the following substantial questions of law: "1. Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction only on the basis of revenue records, when the revenue records are not documents of title? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 2. Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit on the basis of Grama Panchayath records which do not create or extinguish the title? 3. Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit when the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 318 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993? 4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court without following the procedure as contemplated under Order 41, Rules 31 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure?" 10. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Mahesh A.S. learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Smt. Philomena Ross learned counsel for the respondent No.1; Smt. Hemalatha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Ganapathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, and also legal representatives respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 11. Sri. Mahesh A.S., learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, both the Courts below have committed an error in adjudicating the dispute in favour of the plaintiffs based on the revenue records and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is further submitted that the entire discussion made by both the Courts below is based on Ex.P7 (proceedings of defendant No.1-Panchayat), which came to be nullified by issuance of Ex.P8-Resolution of the Panchayat and further, the order of cancellation of khata came to be confirmed by the Zilla Panchayat and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires interference by this Court. It is also submitted that, though the plaintiffs have not produced any material relating to title to the suit subject property, both the Courts below have granted the decree of title in favour of the plaintiffs without - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 any basis and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents herein sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and contended that, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and therefore, the said finding recorded by the Trial Court requires to be confirmed in this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents further submitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property for more than 60 to 70 years and the khata along with other revenue records stands in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and in this regard, learned counsel appearing for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Haryana and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 Another vs. Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Others reported in 2024 INSC 875 and argued that, long possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs is to be considered and to be confirmed in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 13. In the light of the submissions made by both the parties, I have carefully examined the material on record and same would indicate that the plaintiffs have not produced any title document of the property in question except the revenue records, and relied only upon revenue documents i.e. Ex.P16-certified copy of khata extract. On careful examination of Ex.P16 would indicate that the name of the father of plaintiff No.1 is shown as Khatedar. However, the said document cannot be considered as a title document on the sole ground as, nothing is stated about the extent of land belonged to the father of plaintiff No.1. The entry in Ex.P16 stipulates the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 payment of tax to be payable by the father of plaintiff No.1. I have also carefully examined Ex.P7, wherein, the Mandal Panchayat of Lakkavalli has passed the Resolution stating that the father of plaintiff No.1 is having right over the land to an extent of 150 X 150 feet and nothing is stated in the said Resolution about the acquisition of property by the father of plaintiff No.1. 14. In the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Trial Court. Particularly, the Trial Court reiterates the examination-in-chief of plaintiff No.1 and the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3. The Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff No.1 had acquired the property from his father-K. Thimmaiah based on Ex.P16 and Ex.P17, where these two documents are showing the name of the father of plaintiff No.1 as Khathedar of the property in question. The Trial Court - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 has concluded that the revenue documents are 30 years old and, accordingly, presumed that the father of Plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the suit schedule property. The entire discussion made by the Trial Court is based on the revenue documents and nothing has been produced as to how the father of the plaintiff No.1 got the property in question. In this regard, the finding recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.1 is incorrect and the same is required to be interfered with in this appeal. 15. It is also forthcoming from paragraph No.28 of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court that plaintiff No.1 has exhausted all the remedies provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and therefore, same has reached finality and accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court is incorrect on - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 the sole ground that defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat itself has disputed the title of the plaintiffs. At this stage, it is relevant to cite the judgment of this Court in the case of Hullappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2012 Kar 4958 and this Court has held that, it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish his right as an absolute owner based on the acceptable title documents and it is further held that in a suit of declaration of title, unless the plaintiff produces the document of title, the Civil Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of record of rights, tax paid receipts or some communications with the statutory bodies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (d) through LRs vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and Others reported in (2019) 3 SCC 191 held that the mutation entries or revenue records do not create title over the property in question. It is also settled - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 principle in law that, weakness of the defendant cannot be considered while adjudicating the suit, that too particularly in a suit for declaration [See. (2020) 7 SCC 275]. 16. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior vs. Puran Singh Alias Puran Chand and Others reported in 2014 AIAR (Civil) 730 at paragraph 29 held as follows: "29. Mutation entries do not confer title. In Sawarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur & Others, 1996 (6) SCC 223, this Court held: "7….Mutation of property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment…" 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd and Others reported 2014 AIAR Civil 113 held that the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and possession can succeed only on the strength of his own title that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus before the Trial Court. It is also held that the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants, would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiffs. 18. In that view of the matter, it is settled a principle in law that, a revenue record is not a document of title. It is also to be noted that non- production of document of title by the plaintiff would disentitle him, from claiming any right over the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 property in question. Therefore, following the declaration of law made by this Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this court in the cases referred above, I am of the view that, both the Courts below have committed an error in granting the relief of declaration to the plaintiffs without title documents. In that view of the matter, the substantial question of law framed above favours defendant No.1/appeallant herein. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 in RA No.78 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru and judgment and decree dated 24.02.2004 in OS.No.74 of 1995 on the file of the Civil - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34824 RSA No. 892 of 2016 Judge (Sr. Dn.), Tarikere, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, are hereby set aside. iii) The suit of the plaintiffs accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63