- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100239 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMAGOUDA S/O. GANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HERUR, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. 2 MALLANAGOUDA S/O. GANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HERUR, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118. 3. MAHANTAVVA D/O. GANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HERUR, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE.) AND: SMT.HANUMAVVA W/O. GANGANAGOUDA SOLABAGERI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HERUR, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587118 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE.) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.31 11:27:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2015, IN R.A.NO.14/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2013, PASSED IN O.S.NO.71/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND, DISMISSING THE SUIT AND TO RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Heard Sri S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for appellants on admission of the appeal. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015, passed in R.A.No.14/2003, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund. 3. Brief facts leading to this regular second appeal are that the plaintiff who is the respondent in this case had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.71/2006 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund (for short ‘trial Court’); the suit was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 dismissed on 27.03.2013. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff Smt.Hanumavva had preferred Regular Appeal No.14/2013 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund (for short ‘First Appellate Court’). The same came to be allowed on 27.11.2015. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the appellants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the trial Court has clearly held that the plaintiff Smt.Hanumavva has failed to establish her title and on this ground the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Further, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff Smt.Hanumavva has failed to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. Though there is no valid title, the First Appellate Court has decreed the suit only on the basis of admission of DW.1 and DW.2, which is not sustainable under law. When the plaintiff has failed to establish her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 title, she is not entitled for any relief as sought for. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has committed error in allowing the appeal. 5. I have examined the entire material placed before the Court. The plaintiff Smt.Hanumavva has filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.154/2A measuring 02 acres 21 guntas, situated in Herur village of Hungund taluka. To substantiate her case, the plaintiff Smt.Hanumavva examined herself as PW.1 and other 03 witnesses are also examined as PW.2 to PW.4 and produced the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4. Ex.P.1 is the RTC extract pertaining to R.S.No.152/2A for the year 2005-06, which reveals that the name of khatedar is Gangavva Goudar W/o.Bhimanagouda in cultivator’s column and in column No.10 it is shown that “2312, Court decree dated 26.04.2003”. Ex.P.3 is the death certificate of Gangavva who died on 19.12.2005. Ex.P.4 is the mutation extract pertaining to M.E.No.1307. The defendant has claimed his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 rights on the basis of the Mutation Entry No.1307, which is marked as Ex.D.1. Ex.D.1 and P.4 are one and the same. In Ex.P.4 it reads as under: “01.03.73 ¥À±ÁÑvï ¨ÁdÄPÉÌ §gÉzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ UÀAUÀªÀé ©üêÀÄ£À UËqÀæ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁ°Ì d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÁªÀÅ ªÉÄÊvÀ DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄÊzÀ£À£À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ UÀAUÀ£ÀUËqÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ UËqÀæ EªÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀgÀ¢ PÉÆlÖ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrvÀÄ.” 6. During the lifetime of Gangavva, she has not executed any testamentary document in favour of defendant or anybody. It is admitted fact that Hanumavva is the granddaughter of Gangavva. The defendants have not claimed their rights on the basis of succession or heirship. They have claimed their rights only on the basis of mutation entry dated 01.03.2007. This mutation entry is not sustainable in law for the reason that Gangavva during her lifetime has not executed any testamentary document in favour of defendant and she cannot relinquish her rights by way of unregistered wardi. Soon after the death of Gangavva, the defendant has interfered with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff on the basis of the wardi Ex.P.4, which is not permissible and sustainable under law. 7. On the basis of the oral admission of DW.1 and evidence placed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and allowed the appeal. With regard to the title of the property is concerned, both the Courts have not observed the entry in column No.10 in the pahani extract which is marked as Ex.P.1, in which it is clearly mentioned as to the title that “No.2312, Court decree dated 26.04.2003”, which is not disputed by the defendant. The defendant has not explained anything as to the entry of column No.10 in the pahani extract. There is a statutory presumption under section 133 of the Land Revenue Act as to revenue entry, the defendant has failed to place any rebuttal evidence as to the entry of Ex.P.1. 8. The learned counsel for appellants further submits that the trial Court has simply allowed the appeal, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 but has not passed the judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. 9. I have gone through the prayer made in the memorandum of appeal, in which the appellant who is the respondent Hanumavva has sought for the following relief. “(a) The Hon'ble court be pleased to allow the appeal of appellant by setting aside the judgment & decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (jr div) at Hungund in OS no.71/2006 dated 27.03.2013. And the Hon'ble appellate court be pleased to decree the suit of plaintiff in OS no.71/2006 on the file of the lower court by declaring that the appellant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the permanent injunction be granted against the defendants restraining the defendants from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the appellant. (b) Cost of the proceedings be awarded to the appellant against respondents in the interest of justice and equity. (c) Such other reliefs as deemed just and proper be granted to the appellant in the interest of justice and equity.” 10. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit as prayed for in the memorandum of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9254 RSA No. 100239 of 2016 appeal. Therefore, in this regard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellants cannot be accepted. 11. On a careful scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence placed before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that absolutely there are no substantial questions of law involved in this case. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as the appeal is being devoid of merit. MRK CT: CMU. LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22 Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE