- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 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. 409 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2013 IN RSA No. 409/2013 BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O MUDLAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ARASIKERE VILLAGE, NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK – 561 202 …APPELLANT (BY SMT/MISS VANITHA U.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) 1(B) 1(C) HANUMANTHARAYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SRI GUNDEGOWDA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SMT.SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 1(D) 1(E) SRI.BASAVARAJU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SRI. GIRISH, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,. 2. SRI.THIMMAPPA S/O GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT ARASIKERE VILLAGE, NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK – 561 202 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 27.7.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.95/2004 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 7.9.1994 PASSED IN OS.NO.349/1996 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, PAVAGADA. IN RSA NO. 453/2013 BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O MUDLAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ARASIKERE VILLAGE, NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK – 561 202 …APPELLANT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 (BY SMT/MISS VANITHA U.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) 1(B) 1(C) 1(D) HANUMANTHARAYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SMT. R. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SRI H. GUNDEGOWDA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SRI.BASAVARAJU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SRI. GIRISH, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,. ALL ARE R/AT ARASIKERE VILLAGE NIDAGAL HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK – 561 202 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 27.7.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.135/2000 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 DECREE DTD 26.06.2000 PASSED IN OS.NO.27/1997ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, PAVAGADA. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RSA No.409 2013 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2012, passed in R.A.No.95/2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada, and the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004, passed in O.S.No.349/1996 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada. RSA No.453/2013 filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2012, passed in R.A.No.135/2000 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada and the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2000, passed in O.S.No.27/1997 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. In RSA.No.409/2013, the appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. In RSA.No.453/2013, the appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 4. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.349/1996 that the plaintiff’s father acquired the right, title and interest in immovable properties bearing Sy.Nos.33 and 34 of Arasikere Village under a registered sale deed, and a partition thereon. The plaintiff’s father gifted 4 guntas of the land in Sy.No.33 and 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.34 under a registered gift deed dated 10.05.1995. Since she is a unmarried daughter. The plaintiff became the absolute owner by registered gift deed dated 10.05.1995. It is stated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 that the plaintiff is having a right to 1/3rd share of water in the bore-well in Sy.No.35, and also half of the share in 7 tamarind trees in Sy.No.34 land. The gift deed was registered on 10.05.1995. Her name was entered in the revenue records. It is contended that the defendants, being the strangers tried to interfere with the enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff over the immovable properties and attempting to cut and remove the tamarind trees and obstructing the use of water by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration and a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and also denied the execution of the registered gift deed by the plaintiffs’ father in favour of the plaintiff on 10.05.1995. It is denied that the plaintiff is unmarried. It is contended that the plaintiff is the second wife of Nagaraja. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 Nagaraja is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. It is also denied that the father had given half a share of seven tamarind trees situated in Sy.No.34, and also share the water from the bore-well. It is contended that the bore-well dug in Sy.No.35, about 5 years back exclusively belongs to the defendants. It is contended that the suit has been filed in collusion with Nagaraj. It is contended that the plaintiffs’ father and the defendant's father purchased 1 acre and odd land in Sy.No.34 of Arasikere Village in 1975 from his vendor along with 8 tamarind trees, which include 2 tamarind trees situated on the land of Siddalingamma, who is also a purchaser of 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.34 of Arasikere village. Thus, in all, there were 11 tamarind trees in Sy.No.34, out of which 5 were in the portion of Siddalingamma, 2 were in the portion of Mudlagiriyappa, and the remaining 4 trees were in the land of the defendant. It is contended that the plaintiff, taking undue - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 advantage of the wrong recitals of the gift deed executed by her father, is claiming 7 tamarind trees. The plaintiff has a right to only 3 tamarind trees. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. The plaintiff, Hanumantharayappa, in O.S.No.27/1997, filed a suit for a declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of 4 tamarind trees i.e., ABC and also for a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father acquired the right, title and interest over immovable properties bearing Sy.Nos.33 and 34 of Arasikere Village by a registered sale deed, and the partition, thereon. The plaintiff’s father had divided the land and tamarind trees situated in Sy.No.34 of Arasikere village about 15 years back in the presence of the elders and the parties are enjoying their respective shares. It is contended that there were 11 tamarind trees in Sy.No.34 out of which 5 trees were in the portion of the land belonging to Siddalingamma, 2 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 trees were in the portion of Muddalagiriyappa, i.e., the father of the plaintiff and the remaining 4 has in the name of the plaintiff. After the discussions, Mudlagiriyappa was enjoying 4 tamarind trees, two tamarind trees situated in his portion, and the other two trees situated in the portion of Siddalingamma, and all the 4 tamarind trees are standing in the northern border of Sy.No.34 land. The defendant is enjoying 4 tamarind trees, which are situated on the northern border and one on the western border of Sy.No.34. The land of the plaintiff, the defendant and Siddalingamma, and the tamarind trees are shown in the plaintiff's rough sketch. The defendant is the unmarried daughter of Mudalagiriyappa, and he gifted her, a share of the land in Sy.No.34, along with tamarind trees in 1985. There is no dispute regarding the landed properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The dispute is only regarding tamarind trees. The defendants’ father had got the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 right to 3 tamarind trees situated in his land and 2 in the land of Siddalingamma, and there were a wrong recitals in the gift deed executed by the father of the defendants i.e., Mudalagiriyappa in her favour a half share in 7 tamarind trees. The defendants took undue advantage of the wrong recitals in the registered gift deed, in an attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit tamarind trees, and also denied the right of the plaintiff to suit 4 tamarind trees. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration and a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 7. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the father of plaintiff's and the defendant got divided 1 acre and odd land in Sy.No.34, keeping the tamarind trees, jointly for the joint enjoyment and denied the other averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff has not acquired any title - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 over tamarind trees. The plaintiff is not entitled to a relief claimed in the plaint, and there is no cause of action to file a suit for a declaration. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned pleadings, framed the following issues: Issues in O.S.No.349/1996: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner over the suit schedule properties and also her half share in 7 tamarind trees situated in S.No.34 and enjoying the same by virtue of the gift deed executed by her father in her favour dated on 10.05.1995? 2) Further, the plaintiff proves that the defendants have made attempt to interfere and cause obstruction for her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 3) Whether the defendants prove that suit is not maintainable, as there is no cause of action to the suit? 4) What decree or judgment? Issues in O.S.No.27/1997: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that himself his brother Thimappa and his father are the owners of the ABCD tamarind trees shown in the plaint rough sketch? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that himself, his brother THimmmappa and his father are in lawful possession of ABCD suit trees shown in plaint rough sketch? 3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants interfering the possession and enjoyment of himself his brother Thimmappa and his father in respect of suit ABCD trees shown in plaint rough sketch? 4) Whether the defendant proves that the suit ABCD tamarind trees shown in the plaint rough sketch were kept out of partition and he is having half share in the suit trees? 5) Whether the present suit is maintainable in view of the pendency of former suit in O.S.No.349/1996? 6) What order or decree? 9. In O.S.No.349/1996, the plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined her power of attorney holder as PW.1, examined 3 witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4, and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. In rebuttal, the power of attorney holder of the legal representatives of defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined 3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4, and marked 25 documents as Exs.D1 to D25. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed vide judgment dated 07.09.2004. It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land to the extent of 4 guntas in Sy.No.33 and 4 guntas in Sy.No.34 and the plaintiff is having her half right over 5 tamarind trees situated in Sy.No.34. 10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.349/1996, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.95/2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada. 11. In O.S.No.27/1997, the plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. In rebuttal, the power of attorney holder of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 the defendant was examined as DW.1, examined one witnesses as DW.2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.D1 to D10. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, issue Nos.4 answered accordingly, issue No.5 in the affirmative, and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.06.2000. 12. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27/1997, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.135/2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada. 13. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 In R.A.No.95/2004: 1) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff? 2) Whether there are grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree of learned trial Court? 3) Whether there are grounds to allow the cross appeal of the respondents? 4) What order? In R.A.No.135/2000: 1) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff? 2) Whether there are grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court? 3) What order? 14. The First Appellate Court in R.A.No.95/2004, on hearing the parties and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative, point Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative and point No.4 as per final order. The appeal was partly allowed vide judgment dated 27.07.2012. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 O.S.No.349/1996 dated 07.09.1994 was set aside to the extent that the plaintiff is having her half right over 5 tamarind trees situated in Sy.No.34, and the cross appeal filed by the defendant was partly allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, that it decreed the suit of the plaintiff regarding her half right in 4 tamarind trees in the land of the defendant in Sy.No.34 of Arasikere village. 15. The First Appellate Court in R.A.No.135/2000, on hearing the parties and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, and point No.3 as per final order. The appeal was allowed vide judgement dated 27.07.2012. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada in O.S.No.27/1997 dated 26.06.2000 was set aside. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 16. The plaintiff in O.S.No.349/1996, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, filed a Regular Second Appeal in RSA.No.409/2013. The defendant, in O.S.No.27/1997 aggrieved by the judgments and decree passed in R.A.No.135/2000, by the First Appellate Court, filed a Regular Second Appeal in RSA.No.453/2013. 17. This Court, on 21.08.2017, admitted the appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law: In RSA.Nos.409/2013 & 453/2013: 1) Whether the courts below erred in law in holding that under the gift deed dated 10.05.1995 (Ex.P5), the appellant’s father Mudlagiriyappa had gifted only 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.34 of Arasikere Village in favour of the appellant and not 21 guntas? 2) Whether the courts below erred in law in not considering as per the gift deed dated 10.05.1995 (Ex.P5), the revenue records were changed into the name of the appellant for 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.34 of Arasikere village? - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 3) Whether the courts below erred in law in holding that the revenue documents standing in the name of the appellant have got statutory presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act regarding possession of the appellant in respect of 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.34 of Arasikere Village? 4) Whether the courts below erred in law in holding that the respondent No.1 Hanumantharayappa and respondent No.2 Thimappa have got equal rights in respect of 7 tamarind trees situated at Sy.No.34 of Arasikere village? 5) Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are contrary to the material evidence on record? 18. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and the learned counsel for the defendants. 19. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land in Sy.No.34 to the extent of 2 guntas of the land. The courts - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 below have failed to consider Ex.P5, i.e., the application submitted by the plaintiff for mutation which shows the extent of land gifted under Ex.P2 as 21 guntas and, not 4 guntas. Furthermore, the trial Court has failed to consider Ex.P6-themutation register extract, which discloses that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession to the extent of 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.34. Hence, the courts below have committed an error in declining to grant relief of declaration to the extent of 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.34. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that, in Ex.P2 there is a specific recital that the father of the plaintiffs had gifted the land in Sy.No.34 to the extent of 4 guntas and not to the extent of 21 guntas, as alleged by the plaintiff. He also submits that Ex.P6 is not substantive, when Ex.P2 has the revenue authorities have failed to - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 consider the extent of land shown in Ex.P2 and have committed an error in passing the order of mutation to the extent of 21 guntas of the land in Sy.No.34. He also submits that the said mutation is being passed on an untrue piece of evidence, and it has no evidentiary value. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayaram & Ors. Vs. Dawalatshah & Ors., reported in AIR 1971 SC 681. He submits that the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 21. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. REG. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1 TO 5: 22. Substantial questions of law 1 to 5 are interconnected and they are taken for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 23. To prove her case, the plaintiff in O.S. No.349 of 1996 examined through the power of attorney holder. The power of attorney holder reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to substantiate her case, produced Exhibit P-1, the Special Power of Attorney; Exhibit P-2, the certified copy of the registered gift deed executed by the plaintiffs father gifting 0-04 guntas of the land in Survey No.33. But, while mentioning the extent of land gifted in Survey No.34, it is mentioned that out of 01 acre 01 guntas, an extent of 0-21 guntas, akar 30 paise and out of that 0-04 guntas has been gifted. It is contended that the father of the plaintiff had gifted the land to the extent of 0-21 guntas, and not 0-04 guntas. 24. Further, the plaintiff has produced Exhibit P-5 which is the copy of the order dated 08.07.1996 passed by the Tahsildar, Pavagada Taluk, wherein the Tahsildar has affirmed the extents of land gifted in Survey - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 No.33 to the extent of 0-04 guntas, and in Survey No.34 to the extent of 0-21 guntas. Based on Exhibit P-5, the plaintiff’s name was entered in the revenue records to an extent of 0-04 guntas in Sy.No.33, and to an extent of 0-21 guntas in Sy.No.34. 25. Further, the plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S. No.27/1997, by the learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada; the said suit is filed by defendant No.1 / Hanumanthappa against the plaintiff / Lakshmidevi, which was dismissed. 26. The plaintiff also examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4, who deposed that the plaintiff's father gifted the suit schedule properties in her favour under the registered Gift Deed dated 10.05.1995 marked as Exhibit P-2, and the plaintiff is in possession to an extent of 0-21 guntas of land in Survey No.34. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 27. In rebuttal, the power of attorney holder of the legal representatives of defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1. He reiterated the written statement averments in his examination-in-chief, and denied that the plaintiff's father had gifted the plaintiff, land to an extent of 0-21 guntas in Survey No.34. He deposed that the plaintiff’s father gifted only to an extent of 0- 04 guntas of land in Survey No.34 and not to an extent of 0-21 guntas. 28. Further, the defendants also examined three witnesses, wherein they deposed that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule properties, and the plaintiff is not in possession to an extent of 0-21 guntas of the land in Survey No.34. 29. The defendants have also produced 25 documents marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-25. 30. From the perusal of the records produced by the parties, it discloses that the plaintiff is claiming - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 ownership over the land bearing Survey No.34 to an extent of 0-21 guntas, and the entire case of the plaintiff is based on the registered gift deed. 31. At the outset, it is very significant to analyse the recitals of the registered Gift Deed dated 10.05.1995 vide Exhibit P-2. The schedule to the Gift Deed is extracted which is as follows: “zÁ£ÀzÀ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÉÆನ «ªÀgÀ. ತುªÀiಕೂರು ೆ ಾವಗಡ ಾಲೂಕು ಡಗಲು ºÉÆÃಬ ಆರೕೆೆ ಾಮೆ ೇ!ದ ನನ# $ಾೆ ಮತು ¸Áé¢ü£Á£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ%ರುವ ಸªÉð 33 'ೇ ನಂಬgÀÄ ತ! ¨sÁಾಯು ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ಗುಂ*ೆ ಆಾರ ೦-೩೦ ¥ÉÊ¸É ಉಳ/ ಜ1ೕನು ೈ3 ತ! 'ಾಲು ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜ1ೕೆ ZÉಕು ಬಂ4. ಪ6ವ7ೆ : ದ8%ಂಗ9ಮನ ಜ1ೕನು. ¥À:;ಮೆ : ಇ=ೇ ನಂಬರು ೈ3 ನನ# ಆಣ? ಗುಂಡೌಡೆ ೇ!ದ ಜ1ೕನು ಉತರೆ : ದA%ಂಗಮBನ ಜ1ೕನು ಮತು zÁj . ದCಣೆ : ¥ÀÄlÖಮBನ ಜ1ೕನು. ಈ ಮEೆF ಇರುವ ಸGತು ಒಂದು. ತುಮಕೂರು ೆ ಾವಗಡ ಾ®ÆèPÀÄ, ಡಗಲು ºÉÆÃಬ ಅರೕೆೆ UÁæಮೆ ೇ!ರ ನನ# $ಾೆ ಮತು ¸Áé¢ü£Á£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ%ರುವ ಸJೆ7 ೩೪ 'ೇ £ÀA§gÀÄ ತ! ¨sÁಾಯು ಒಂದು Jಕೆ ಒಂದು ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜ1ೕನು ೈ3 ಇಪLೊಂದು ಗುಂ*ೆ ಆಾರ ೧-೩೦ ೈ ೆ ಉಳ/ ಜ1ೕನು ೈ3 ತ! 'ಾಲು ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜ1ೕ¤UÉ ZÉಕು ಬಂ4. ಪ6ವ7ೆ: ದ8%ಂಗಮBನ ಜ1ೕನು. ಪ:;ಮೆ : ಇ=ೇ ನಂಬರು ೈ3 ನನ# ಆಣ? ಗುಂಡೌಡೆ ೇ!ದ ಜ1ೕನು - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 ಉತರೆ : ೆೆ ಾ®Ä=ೆ ಮತು ನನ# ಸGಂತ ಜ1ೕನು ದCಣೆ : ಗುಂNೆೌಡ!ೆ ೇ!ದ ಸLªÉð 33 'ೇ ನಂಬgÀÄ ಜ1ೕನು ಈ ಮzsÉå ಇರುವ ಸGತು ಒಂದು ಜುªÀÄè ಎರಡು LlA ಜ1ೕನು ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಈ ಜ1ೕನುಗೆ ೆೆ ೕ!ನ ಆಸೆ Pಾಗೂ ನನ# ಸGಂತ ಜ1ೕ'ಾದ ಊರು ಪಕದ%ರುವ ಜ1ೕAದ ನನ# ಅಣ? ತಮBಂ4ರ Rಾಗದಂೆ ನನ# Rಾಗದ PÉƼÀªÉ¨Á« ೕ!ನ ºÀ3ನ% ನನSರ ತಕ ಅಧ7 Rಾಗದ% ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà ಒಂದು U ೆV ºÀಕು ಮತು ಈ ಜ1ೕನ% ಇರತಕ ಏಳX ಸಣ? ಹುಣ ೆಮರಗಳ% ನನSರತಕ ಅಧ7 ºÀಕು ¥ÀÆಾ ೇ!ರುವ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ಜ1ೕನನು# ನನ# RÄzÀÄÝ gÁf¬ÄAzÀ §gÉzÀÄ §gɬĹ PÉÆlÖ =ಾನಪತ, F zÁ£ÀzÀ ¸Àéw£À ¨É¯É ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ zÀgÀzÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 20,000/- ¨Á¼ÀÄvÉÛ. ” (underlined by me) 32. I have perused the contents of the registered Gift Deed dated 10.05.1995. From the perusal of recitals of Exhibit P2, it discloses that the plaintiff’s father had gifted only 0-04 guntas of the land and not 0-21 guntas of the land in Survey No.34. 33. The plaintiff has placed reliance on the order dated 08.07.1996 passed by the Tahsildar, Pavagada, marked as Exhibit P-5. The order passed by the Tahsildar is not supported by any documents to show that the plaintiff’s father had gifted the land to the - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 extent of 0-21 guntas in Survey No.34. The order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to Exhibit P2 i.e., the registered gift deed. In the registered gift deed, the extent of land gifted in favour of the plaintiff in Sy.No.34 is shown as 0-04 guntas, and not 0-21 guntas. 34. As observed above, the order passed by the Tahsildar is without any basis. Any mutation order passed by the Revenue Authorities based on untrue piece of evidence has no evidentiary value in a civil suit. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Dayaram vs. Dawalatshah and others, reported in AIR 1971 SC 681. 35. Both the Courts below considering the recitals of Exhibit P-2 have rightly held that the plaintiff is the owner only to the extent of 0-04 guntas in Sy.No.34, and not to the extent of 0-21 guntas. The plaintiff - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 has failed to prove that she is the absolute owner to the extent of 0-21 guntas in Sy.No.34, and both the Courts have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff to an extent of 0-04 guntas in Survey No.33, and 0-04 guntas in Survey No.34. 36. The plaintiff, except the order dated 08.07.1996 passed by the Tahsildar, Pavagada, marked as Exhibit P-5, has not produced any title deeds to the extent of other 0-17 guntas in land bearing Survey No.34. 37. When the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, she has to produce the title deeds in order to seek the relief of a declaration. 38. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced any title deeds to an extent of other 0-17 guntas in Survey No.34. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record, and disbelieved - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 Exhibit P-5 on the ground that the order passed by the Tahsildar is not binding on the Civil Court. 39. It is no more res integra that the revenue records are not the title deeds. The suit for declaration of title deeds based on revenue records is not maintainable. Although, there is a presumption regarding the entries in the record of rights under Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 the said presumption is rebutable. 40. As observed above, Exhibit P-5 has no evidentiary value in a civil suit, and further, the order passed by the Tahsildar, Pavagada has no basis to enter the name of the plaintiff to an extent of 0-21 guntas in the land in Sy.No.34. The plaintiff has failed to prove that, she is the absolute owner to the extent of 21 guntas. Hence, the plaintiff has not acquired any title to the extent of 0-21 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.34 of Arasikere Village. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 41. In O.S. No.27 of 1997, pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court, a Court Commissioner was appointed to conduct the spot inspection. He visited the spot, and submitted the report to the Trial Court. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW-1. He has deposed that, he visited the spot, and conducted the investigation and found that the plaintiff in O.S. No.27 of 1997 is enjoying four Tamarind trees. 42. On the perusal of the Court Commissioner’s report coupled with the sketch prepared by him, it is clear that there are four Tamarind trees in the plaintiff’s land. The said Tamarind trees are situated in the plaintiff’s land, and the plaintiff is having an absolute right over these four Tamarind trees. 43. The First Appellate Court, placing reliance on the records produced by the parties, held that these four Tamarind trees are situated on the plaintiff’s land and hence, the plaintiff is having absolute right. The plea - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 of the defendant that she has half a share over the said four Tamarind trees including two Tamarind trees in the land of Siddalingamma is baseless, untenable, and therefore, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff in O. S. No.27 of 1997, and rightly passed the impugned judgment. 44. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 to 5 in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) The Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. (II) The judgments and decrees passed in R.A.No.135/2000 and R.A.No.95/2004 by the learned Itinerary Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada are hereby confirmed. (III) No order as to the costs. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24042 RSA No. 409 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 453 of 2013 (IV) In view of the dismissal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB/RK CT: KVH