- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. PEDDAKKA W/O SUBBARAYAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, KUM. SUJATHA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT OPP. GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH H V., ADVOCATE) AND: K. NARAYANAPPA S/O PEDDA KONDAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 1. SMT. BHARATHAMMA, W/O LATE K. NARAYANAPPA, SINCE DEAD, REP. BY R2 TO R4. 2. KANTHAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SUNANDAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. K N JAYAKUMAR S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NEAR VETERINARY HOSPITAL, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDEESWAR D R, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4 V/O DATED 29.11.2024, R2 TO R4 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC. 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2014 PASSED IN RA NO.14/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC MADHUGIRI (SITTING AT PAVAGADA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.1989 PASSED IN OS.NO.101/1986 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF AND J.M.F.C AT PAVAGADA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2014 passed in RA No.14 of 1990 by the learned Itinerary Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada (‘First Appellate Court’ for short) and the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1989 passed in OS No.101 of 1986 by the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Pavagada (‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants are the LRs of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents are the LRs of the deceased defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 owner of the suit schedule property and it is contented that the suit schedule property was granted in favour the of husband of the plaintiff by Town Municipal Council, Pavagada (‘TMC’ for short) under a Resolution dated 14.04.1946. The husband of the plaintiff died. After his demise, the plaintiff continued to reside in the house of her parents for some time. During her stay in her parents' house, her father paid the tax of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had a son, who died some years back before the filing of the suit and the defendant being the relative of the plaintiff was trying to knock away the suit schedule property, in collusion with the Municipal Authorities and tried to oust the plaintiff's right. The plaintiff resisted the interference of the defendant and the defendant filed a case against her and Town Municipal Council before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur in MVN.1/LR/19/84-85 and the same was withdrawn on 29.07.1985. The plaintiff filed an application before the TMC seeking permission for construction of a building in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 the suit schedule site. The TMC granted a license. Due to the financial crisis, the plaintiff could not construct the house in the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendant is making attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. It is contented that, the defendant has no right, title or interest towards the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that, the suit schedule site is the ancestral property of the defendant and in a partition effected between him and his brother, the suit schedule property fell to the share of the defendant. The defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property since from the time of his father. The measurement of the suit schedule site given by the plaintiff is incorrect. Hence, the plaintiff is not in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 possession of the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the relevant issues. 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1 and marked 19 documents as Exhibits P1 to P19. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and marked 5 documents as Exhibits D1 to D5. 7. The Trial Court, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and has not produced any title deeds, except the tax paid receipts. 8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of suit, filed an appeal in RA No.14 of 1990 on the file of the First Appellate Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 9. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 05.07.2014. 10. The LRs of the plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the LRs of the deceased plaintiff and the learned counsel for the LRs of the deceased defendant. 12. Learned counsel for the LRs of the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff has produced Exhibit P15 i.e., grant order/resolution passed by TMC, which discloses that the said property was purchased in an auction. Hence, Exhibit P15 is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have not properly considered Exhibit P15 and also the tax paid receipts and khata, which is in the name of the plaintiff. The Trial Court could have granted a relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. On the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 contrary, dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. He submits that, the plaintiff has produced 19 documents to prove the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that, the defendant has failed to prove the title and possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the LRs of the defendant supports the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below. It is contended that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendant, which fell to the share of the defendant in partition. It is contended that, he is in the possession of the suit property. It is further contended that, the plaintiff has not produced any title records and she is not in possession of the same. Hence, the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Thus, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction based on a resolution passed by TMC as per Exhibit P15. From the perusal of Exhibit P15, there it is mentioned that the property is purchased under the auction. The plaintiff, except producing the said resolution, has not produced any other records and further, the plaintiff has not examined the author of Exhibit P15. Though the plaintiff has produced the khata extract and tax paid receipts, the same are not the title deeds. Exhibit P15 resolution is not supported by any documents. In the absence of any title deed, the Trial Court was justified in declining to grant a relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. Both the Courts below, considering the statement of PW-1 in the cross-examination that the plaintiff has not visited the suit property for more than 4 to 5 years, recorded a finding that the plaintiff is out of possession of the suit schedule - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 property. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the plaintiff stating that, the plaintiff has failed to produce the title deeds to prove his ownership over the suit schedule property. 16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the defendant has not produced any record to establish his ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the suit is one for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff must succeed his case independently and cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others1. Further, the defendant has not sought for any counter-claim. Hence, the Trial Court has not declared the ownership and possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. Further, both Courts below were justified in 1 (2014) 2 SCC 269 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49374 RSA No. 1033 of 2015 passing the impugned judgments. I do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is dismissed; ii. Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5