- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI CHIKKAVENKATAIAH S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DODDA KABBALLI VILLAGE KODIHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NINGEGOWDA @ UMESH S/O LATE D L MADHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SRI MUNIBYRAIAH @ AYYA S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT DODDA KABBALLI VILLAGE KODIHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.156/2019 (OLD RA.No.4/2017) ON THE FILE OF THE II Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA TO SIT AT KANAKAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.07.2016 PASSED IN O.S.No.32/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Ravishankar S., learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. He has challenged the validity of the judgement and decree passed in O.S. No.32/2013 whereby a suit for declaration came to be dismissed which was confirmed in R.A.5156/2019 (old R.A.No.4/2017). 4. Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law : A) Whether the courts below justified in rejecting Ex.P4 the Hakkupatra on the ground that the same does not disclose any boundaries when it refers to number of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 the property allotted which could be sufficient to identify the suit schedule property within the meaning of Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. B) Whether the courts below justified in going beyond the pleading to hold that the suit schedule property is not identifiable in the absence any boundaries being referred to in ExP4 when the defendants have not set up any defense by filing their written statement. C) Whether the courts below justified in holding that the Ex. P5 to P11 the assessment extract being issued by the Kodihalli Panchayat and the claim of the appellant is in respect of the property situated in Doddakabballi village without analyzing the fact that Doddakabballi Village is situated within the territory of Kodihalli Hobli and Panchayath refers to Ex.P5 to P11 is the group of various villages constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act 1993. D) Whether the court below justified in holding that Under Ex.P4 the number of site referred is 1 and the appellant claims that the number of the suit schedule property as 56/1 without going to the contents of the Ex.P 5 to P11 wherein 56 refers to the serial number maintained in the Books of the Village Panchayat and the property numbers refers to 1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 5. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the court below 6. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under : Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.32/2013 for relief of declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property which is a site having old Khaneshumari No.56/1, new 112/56/1 measuring 50 feet x 40 feet consisting of a shed situated at Dadakabballi Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District (hereinafter referred to as suit property) SCHEDULE Property bearing Khaneshumari No. Old 56/1, New 112/56/1, measuring 50X40 feet, consisting of Shed, situated at Doddakabballi Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapuara Taluk, Ramanagara District and bounded on the : East by: Land of Narayanagowda, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 West by: Property of Jayamma, North by: Road, South by: Land of Narayanagowda. 7. Plaintiff claims that he has been granted the above site in memory of 25th year of independence as the plaintiff was economically and socially downtrodden person. To evidence the said grant, plaintiff has filed 'Hakku Pathra' issued by Tahsildar, Kanakapura. 8. It is contended that defendants have no right whatsoever in respect of the said suit property, tried to interfere with the suit property and they claimed that their site is situated in Sy.No.162 of Doddakabballi Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk which was granted for Siddappaji Temple and that site has got nothing to do with the suit property. 9. It is further contended that plaintiff had filed O.S.No.248/2002 against defendants for permanent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 injunction. Said suit was dismissed and thereafter the present suit came to be filed. 10. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants appeared before the Court through their counsel but failed to file any written statement. 11. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge formed the points for consideration and recorded the evidence of the parties, heard the arguments and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraphs No.11 and 12 as under: 11. In support of his contention, the plaintiff has also produced Hakkupathra as ExP-4. On carefully plain reading of ExD-4 no boundary and measurements are mentioned, it is clearly admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination. ExP-1 to ExP-3 are the RTC extracts, it must be noted that ExP-1 to ExP-3 it pertains to Sy. No/11/21n column No.9 the name of Mogaiah @ Mariah and others appeared. In Exp-1 to ExP-3 the plaintiff name is not mentioned. On the other hand on carefully perusal of ExP-2 in column No.9 the defendant name is mentioned. The Hakku Patra has been produced by the plaintiff as per ExP-4 as I have already discussed, there is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 no measurements or boundary is mentioned. Therefore, this court can not relay upon on this documents. ExP-5 to ExP-12 are the demand register extracts. in this documents clearly goes to show that, in these documents the Siddappaji Temple name is appeared. But no single iota of document is produced to show that the temple belonged to him In his evidence he stated that he has constructed and using in the suit schedule property along with the his family members. No document is produced to establish his facts. In the cross examination he deposed that the suit schedule property measurements is 60x50, but he dines that the boundaries shown by him pertains to Siddappaji Temple of Doddakabbali in Sy.No. 162. He also denies that he is not in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 12. In order to establish his case, he made an attempt to examine an independent witness as Pw-2 who neighbour of the suit schedule property. In Exp-5 to ExP- 11 Kodihalli Village and Hobli is mentioned. But, as per own pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff schedule property situated at Doddakabbalu Village. Though, the numbers of property nol tallies of the suit schedule property. These documents pertaining to Kodihalli Village are produced by the plaintiff in support of his case. While, in his evidence that the suit schedule property belonged Doddagabadi Village. In otherwise no documents are produced by the plaintiff with respect the suit schedule property pertaining to Doddagabadi. Those the documentary evidence namely ExP 5 10 10 are the public - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 documents, which are produced by him, in support of his possession over the suit schedule property It ExP-4 Hakku Patra perused does not shown any survey number, but it refers site number namely site No.1 measuring 50x40 feet in Doddakabbalu Village. This document does not depicts the Kaneshumari number, but refers site number No.1. Even though, it is evidence of Pw-1 that the Hakku Patra granted to the plaintiff in the year 1972. Here itself, there is no materials produced by him as to why the said Hakku Patra is not acted upon. As, I have already discussed in the above said paragraphs ExP-5 to ExP-10 namely demand register extracts are pertaining for the year 1997-1998. There is no documents are produced by the plaintiff before the said period. However, the documents produced by the plaintiff namely demand register extracts are not reliable, as belong to same other village namely Kodihalli Village. The evidence of Pw-1 and 2 are not trust worthy with the documentary evidence in support of any number of witnesses. Such as evidence of Pw-2 and 3 with respect to the possession of the plaintiff becomes irrelevant, as it is settled in Principle of Law that, it is the documents which speaks the truth always. Moreover, Pw-2 and Pw-3 are also given evidence on behalf of the plaintiff herein in O.S.No.248/2012. So, this court can be said that, they are the habitual witnesses. Moreover. Pw-2 and Pw-3 are speaking about the possession of the plaintiff over Sy.No.50/1. However, there is no substance produced by the plaintiff to show it. Moreover, the plaintiff has not challengeable the judgment passed by this court in O.S.No.248/2002, so it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 comes final. Thus, In my opinion is that the plaintiff has not locostandy to file this suil Further, he can not get any relief from the case of this court as prayed in the suit. Under this circumstances, the initial burden is upon the plaintiff to establish his case. In my considered view, the plaintiff has failed to establish his case and accordingly there is no question of interference as alleged by him. The cause of action shown by the plaintiff does not hold good. In view of the same Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 12. Being aggrieved, plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court in R.A.No.4/2017. Same was renumbered as R.A. No.5156/2019 and was adjudicated on the merits of the matter by calling for records. 13. After hearing the arguments, appeal came to be dismissed inter alia holding in paragraphs No.36 to 39 as under: 36. As could be seen from the evidence in cross examination of PW-1, he admits that earlier injunction suit in respect of same subject matter of the suit in O.S.248/2002 without showing suit propety boundaries has been dismissed and subsequently the present suit has been filed by inserting boundaries. In the cross - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 examination he stated that suit property measures 60 x 40 feet inspite the suit property is shown as 50 x 40 feet. On careful perusal of the entire cross examination of pW- 1, he stated that the suit property is a granted land situated in Sy.No.11 and 14 inspite the suit schedule shows Old Khanesumari No.56/1 and New No.112/56/1 situated at Dodda Kabballi village having extent of 50 x 40 feet. He has further in the cross examination admits that the Ex.P-4 Grant Certificate in his name, no boundaries are shown and it is situated in Sy.No.11 and 14 of Dodda Kabballi. He further admits that in Sy.No.162 the land has been granted for construction of Sidappaji Temple. Не fürther admits that the said land granted in Sy.No.162 for Sidappaji temple has been shown as the suit property. He 'further admits that he has not preferred appeal against his earlier O.S.248/2002 dismissed in connection with the present suit property. He denied that false suit has been filed by creating documents and deposing falsely though he is not in possession of suit property, 37. As could be seen from the records before the trial court, the PW-2 and 3 were not cross examined as they did not appear. 38. As could be seen from the Ex.P-4 the Grant Certificate relied by the appellant/plaintiff, no boundary and measurements are mentioned and even in Ex.P-3 RTC regarding Sy.No.11 name of one Moogaiah @ Maraiah for 1 acre 38 guntas is appearing and hence the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 name of plaintiff in Col. No.9 of Ex.P-3 does not find place. Even in Ex.P-1 and 2 RTC's name of plaintiff Chikka-Venkataiah does not find place. The Ex.P-1 to 3 RTC's are not tallying to the suit property description. As per Ex.P-5 to 11 demand register extracts, same are standing in the name of plaintiff Chikkavenkataiah but except Ex.P-11 the demand register extract for the year 2010-11, no boundaries of suit property mentioned in Ex.P-5 to 10. Further the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P- 11 demand register extract d not have any foundation as to how the property measuring 50 x 40 feet has been entered in Ex.P-11. Further the Ex.P-12 to 14 are the tax paid receipts, though standing in the name of plaintiff/appellant but the said tax paid receipts and the Ex.P-15 and 16 demand register extracts appear in the name of Siddappaji temple for property bearing No.1 as contended by the defendants. Further though it is relied upon Ex.P-17 by the appellant/plaintiff to show that Sy.No.11 claiming by the plaintiff and Sy.No.162 claiming by the defendants are far way and different properties but that aspect cannot be considered as material and proved one for the reason that the main document Ex.P-1 Grant Certificate relied by the plaintiff does not find any particular therein and further the subsequent boundaries got entered in measurements and boundaries to claim Site No.1 mentioned the tax demand register extract for the year 2010-11 showing hut and vacant space in the name of plaintiff for 50 x 40 feet as per Ex.P-11 in which western boundary is different than the one mentioned in the suit property. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 39. Therefore merely because the tax demand register extracts for the year 2011 shows the name of the plaintiff/appellant in Ex.P-11 and such other tax demand register extracts as per Ex.P-5 to 10 which have no base authoritatively when the main Ex.P-4 Grant certificate shows no any particular boundaries and measurements for the Khanesumari number as mentioned n the suit schedule, it is clear to held that there is absence of material proof to claim ownership by way of declaratory relief. 14. Being further aggrieved by same, the appellant has filed the present appeal and this Court at the hearing of Admission has formulated the above substantial questions of law. 15. Sri. Ravi Shankar S. reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum pursuant to the substantial questions of law raised formulated at the time of admission and contented that in the absence of contest by the defendants, the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 16. He would further contend that mere non mentioning of the boundaries in Ex.P4 - Hakku Pathra would not take away the right, title and interest that he had in respect of the suit property. 17. He also contended that earlier suit filed by the plaintiff got dismissed on incorrect findings which did not debar the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit. Therefore plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction which is again dismissed by both the Courts on wrong appreciation of the material evidence on record and sought for allowing the appeal by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant. 18. Respondents are duly served with notice of the appeal and unrepresented. 19. In the light of the arguments put-forth on behalf of the appellant, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 20. On such perusal of the material on record, both the Courts have taken into consideration the discrepancy in the evidence of the plaintiff especially with regard to the recitals in Ex.P4. 21. Admittedly Ex.P4 is the only title document in respect of the suit property that the plaintiff possesses. In Ex.P4, it is pertinent to note that there are no boundaries mentioned to Site No.1. Further, there is no other person from the Government or the Panchayat has been examined by the plaintiff to substantiate that site No.1 is of Doddakabballi Village, Kodihalli Hobli is the suit property. 22. Revenue documents filed vide Ex.5 shows that the tax was collected in respect of site No.1 are Kodihalli Village, Kodihalli Hobli. 23. Sri Ravi Shankar S., learned counsel for the appellant tried to explain before this Court that assessment is by the Kodihalli Gram Panchayat, Kodihalli - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 Hobli as Doddakabballi Village is a small Village. But in Ex.P6, it is mentioned that assessment is for Doddakabballi Village. Likewise, with regard to the Khaneshumari number, there are discrepancies that has been noticed by the First Appellate Court. Whereas, under Ex.P1 it is only shown as site No.1, but in Khaneshumari number, it was mentioned as No.56/1 and later on No.112/56/1. 24. What are the documents which would connect the site No.1 with the Khaneshumari old No.56/1 and new No.112/56/1 is not mentioned either in the plaint or in the evidence. 25. Further, no documents are also placed on record in this regard to establish that site No.1 granted to the plaintiff is the suit property. 26. Even according to the plaint averments, defendants have been granted a site in the name of Siddappaji Temple which is Sy.No.162. Therefore - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 defendants are claiming that the suit property is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and defendants have got nothing to do with the same. 27. To establish that the property of the defendants are in Sy.No.162, Exs.P1 to P3 are filed. Neither Siddappaji temple nor name of the plaintiff is forthcoming in Exs.P1 to P3. Likewise, in Exs.P1 to P3, name of D.L. Mahadevaiah, Munibhyraiah and Puttamadamma are found. 28. If that is so, what are the reasons for the plaintiff to file Exs.P1 to P3 and rely upon them is not explained by plaintiff. 29. A Panchayat Officer or any official from Tahasildar Office, Kanakapura could have been summoned to establish the genuineness of Ex.P4. Such an attempt is not made by the plaintiff before Trial Court. At least, before the First Appellate Court, no attempt is made to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34207 RSA No. 266 of 2021 place on record the documents to show that the site No.1 that has been granted under Ex.P4 is the suit property. 30. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, both the Courts have held that plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property is the property that has been granted under Ex.P4. 31. Accordingly, substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admitting of the appeal is held against in 'negative' and against the appellant. 32. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (ii) No costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66 ct: BHK