- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200368 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANNABASAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA @ GIDDA HANUMAPPA BHOVE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MEDIKINAL VILLAGE, NEAR CHOWDAMMA TEMPLE, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. 2. BALAPPA S/O MUDUKAPPA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MEDICINAL VILLAGE, NEAR CHANNAMALLAYYA SWAMY MATH, 1. DYAVANNA S/O LATE YAMANAPPA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. DURUGAPPA S/O LATE YAMANAPPA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. HANUMAPPA S/O LATE YAMANAPPA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/O MEDIKINAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2014 BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DIST JUDGE, AT RAICHUR REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/2012 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, LINGASUGUR WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.12.2025 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV JUDGMENT Captioned appeal is by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2014 in RA No.24/2014 by II Addl. District Judge, Raichur reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2014 in OS No.66/2012 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, declaring plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit land, based on registered sale deed dated 13.05.1970. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. Facts leading to the case are as follows: The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction on the strength of a registered sale deed executed in favour of their father by the defendants’ father. As the original sale deed was stated to be lost and both parents had passed away, the plaintiffs laid the necessary foundation and produced a certified copy of the registered sale deed. 4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, stoutly denying the plaint averments. According to the defendants, Survey No.178 measures in all 30 acres 8 guntas and constitutes the ancestral joint family property of defendant No.2. It was their further plea that defendant No.1, having been given in adoption, has no right or share in the property. Defendant No.2 therefore asserted that, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 on the demise of his father Hanumappa, he alone inherited the entire extent and is the absolute owner in possession of the whole land, including the suit extent of 8 acres. The alleged sale deed dated 13.05.1970 in favour of the plaintiffs’ father was specifically disputed as being forged and fabricated, and delivery of possession under the said deed was also denied. Based on these rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the necessary issues and the parties proceeded to trial. 5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiffs had established their title to and possession over the suit schedule property. The Court further recorded a finding on Additional Issue No.1 that, notwithstanding the conveyance of 8 acres from the eastern portion by his father, defendant No.2 had illegally brought about the mutation of the entire property in his name after his father’s death. The Trial Court also held that defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 No.2 had failed to substantiate his allegation that the registered sale deed dated 13.05.1970 was concocted or forged. 6. Aggrieved, defendant No.2 preferred R.A. No.24/2014. The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decree principally on the grounds that the suit was filed after an unexplained delay of 42 years, that the plaintiffs were not shown to have paid land revenue in respect of the suit land, and that their possession was not proved at any point of time. The Appellate Court also noted that the RTC entries stood in the name of defendant No.2 and had never been challenged by the plaintiffs. It further held that the evidence of plaintiff No.3 was insufficient as he was not born at the time of the sale transaction, and that plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2, being heirs born prior to purchase, ought to have entered the witness box to prove the sale deed dated 13.05.1970. On the premise that the plaintiffs were not in possession, the Appellate Court concluded that a suit for declaration with a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 consequential relief of injunction was not maintainable, and on these grounds dismissed the suit. 7. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the present second appeal challenging the divergent findings. By order dated 31.01.2015, this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any legal error in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs have lost their right by means of acquiescence over the suit scheduled property and thereby they have not proved the title and possession over the suit scheduled property? (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any serious error in throwing the burden on the plaintiffs with regard to the defense taken by the defendants regarding the forgery of the documents, Ex.P-3, though the Trial Court has framed issue on defendant No.2 to prove the said allegations? (iii) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any legal error in allowing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 appeal and dismissing the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation? (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any legal error in appreciating the documentary and oral evidence on record in order to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court?” Findings on Substantial Question Nos. (i), (iii) and (iv): 8. The plaintiffs claim title to the suit schedule property on the strength of a registered sale deed executed in favour of their father by the defendants’ father. The First Appellate Court, however, reversed the well-reasoned decree of the Trial Court primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs’ father had never secured mutation of the property in his name in the revenue records, and therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their possession over the suit land. The Appellate Court further held that the plaintiffs had approached the Court after an unexplained delay of 42 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 years, and therefore, opined that the suit was barred by limitation. Invoking Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the Appellate Court held that the suit for declaration was time- barred. The Appellate Court also cast doubt on the genuineness of the sale deed on the premise that the attesting witnesses named therein were not examined by the plaintiffs and that plaintiff No.3, having been born subsequent to the execution of the sale deed, was incompetent to depose regarding the transaction. Heavy reliance was placed on the revenue entries standing in the name of defendant No.2, which formed the principal foundation for reversing the Trial Court’s decree. 9. The plaintiffs, in order to establish their father’s title to 8 acres under the registered sale deed dated 13.05.1970 (Ex.P-3), had specifically pleaded in paragraph 7 of the plaint that the original sale deed was lost. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs’ parents are no longer alive. The pleading that the original deed is untraceable constitutes adequate foundation under the Evidence Act - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 for producing a certified copy. The defendants have contested the suit solely on the allegation that the sale deed is concocted. It must be emphasized that upon execution of a registered sale deed, the revenue authorities are under a statutory obligation under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to effect mutation in favour of the transferee. Any failure on the part of the revenue authorities to carry out such mutation, or the continued reflection of the vendor’s name in the RTC, is attributable entirely to administrative omission and cannot, in law, dilute the validity or efficacy of the registered conveyance. Mutation is a fiscal entry under Sections 127 and 128 of the Land Revenue Act and does not confer, extinguish, or create title. 10. The recitals contained in a duly registered sale deed, including the recital regarding delivery of possession, carry a presumption of correctness and possess higher evidentiary sanctity than any revenue entry. Crucially, the defendants have never challenged the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 validity of the sale deed executed by their father nor initiated proceedings to annul the conveyance at any time over the past several decades. 11. Under Additional Issue No.1, the burden squarely rested upon the defendants to prove their plea that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs was fabricated. Defendant No.2 has merely made a bald assertion that the document is concocted. Once the plaintiffs produced the certified copy of a registered instrument and laid the necessary foundation for non-production of the original, the burden definitively shifted to the defendants in terms of Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A registered document enjoys a statutory presumption of regularity under the Registration Act, 1908 and cannot be displaced by vague or speculative allegations. Order VI Rule 4 CPC mandates that fraud, forgery, or fabrication must be pleaded with particulars and proved by cogent evidence. No such particulars have been pleaded, nor has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 any independent material been placed by defendant No.2 to substantiate his allegation. 12. Further, under Sections 8 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, once a transfer is executed, all rights and interests of the transferor in the property pass to the transferee, and the transferor’s heirs cannot subsequently assert rights contrary to the transfer. Upon execution of the sale deed by Hanumappa in 1970, the said 8 acres stood divested from him, leaving nothing to devolve upon defendant No.2 in respect of the said land. Defendant No.2, being a legal heir of the executant, is estopped from disputing his father’s act of conveyance, especially when no challenge has been mounted against the transaction for over four decades. 13. In light of the above legal position, this Court finds that the Appellate Court misdirected itself by placing undue reliance on revenue entries while ignoring the superior evidentiary value of a registered sale deed. Section 92 of the Evidence Act bars any oral or - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 documentary evidence that contradicts, varies, or nullifies the recitals in a written contract, including a sale deed. The Adverse inference drawn by the Appellate Court against the plaintiffs for non-examination of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 is wholly unwarranted. When title is based on a registered conveyance, the decisive question is whether the defendants have rebutted the statutory presumption and recitals contained in the deed. The Appellate Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession is perverse and contrary to the recitals in Ex.P-3, which explicitly records delivery of possession. Any assertion by defendant No.2 that contradicts such recitals is barred under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. 14. The Appellate Court also failed to correctly appreciate the comparative weight of the evidence led by both parties. Once the defendants alleged fraud and concoction, the burden lay on them to substantiate the same. The defendants having failed to discharge this - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 burden, the Appellate Court could not have reversed the decree on conjectures and revenue entries. 15. A significant and telling circumstance emerges from the evidence. Defendant No.1, who is also a son of Hanumappa but given in adoption, has unequivocally admitted the execution of the sale deed by his father. His statement lends strong corroboration to the plaintiffs’ case. Though adoption divests him of rights in the property, it does not efface his knowledge of the family’s transactions. His acknowledgment that his father sold 8 acres from the eastern portion stands as an independent admission supporting the plaintiffs’ version. The plaintiffs have, therefore, clearly discharged their initial burden of proving title under Ex.P-3. Defendant No.2 has not challenged the sale deed for several decades, and his silence significantly strengthens the presumption of correctness of the registered sale deed. 16. The finding of the Appellate Court that the suit is barred by limitation is also palpably erroneous. The - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 plaintiffs trace their title through a registered sale deed. The defendants have not pleaded adverse possession, nor produced any evidence apart from revenue entries to show that they were in possession of the specific extent sold by their father. Article 58 of the Limitation Act has no application where the plaintiffs’ title is intact and never legally extinguished. The reasoning of the Appellate Court that the suit for declaration and injunction was not maintainable for want of possession demonstrates a misunderstanding of the law governing title suits and the evidentiary presumption attached to a registered sale deed. Consequently, the findings of the Appellate Court on limitation, possession, and maintainability suffer from perversity and are liable to be set aside. Substantial Question Nos. (i), (iii), and (iv) are accordingly answered in the ‘affirmative’. Findings on Substantial Question No. (ii): 17. As already noted, it is the defendants who have specifically taken the plea that the registered sale deed - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 relied upon by the plaintiffs is a concocted and fabricated document. In law, once a party alleges fraud, forgery or fabrication, the burden of proof rests squarely upon that party. Accordingly, the burden was unequivocally on defendant No.2 to establish, by cogent and convincing evidence, that the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs’ father was a created or forged document. The plaintiffs, on their part, discharged their initial burden by producing the certified copy of a duly registered conveyance, after laying the requisite foundation regarding loss of the original. The production of a registered sale deed carries with it a statutory presumption of regularity and correctness, and once such document is placed on record, the burden decisively shifts to the contesting party to substantiate allegations of fabrication. 18. Defendant No.2, however, has failed to produce even the minimal particulars of forgery as mandated under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No material, oral or documentary, has been brought on record - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 to demonstrate that the execution of the sale deed was fraudulent, collusive, or otherwise tainted. A bare assertion of concoction, unsupported by pleadings or evidence, cannot rebut the presumption attached to a registered document. In this backdrop, the First Appellate Court was wholly unjustified in casting doubt upon the validity of the sale deed or in reversing the well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has clearly misdirected itself in law by ignoring the principles governing burden of proof under Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and by failing to appreciate the Trial Court’s findings in their proper perspective. 19. The First Appellate Court, while reversing a well- reasoned decree of the Trial Court, has committed a manifest error in placing undue reliance on revenue entries to record a finding on possession, in complete disregard of the categorical recitals contained in the registered sale deed dated 13.05.1970 executed by the father of the defendants. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 20. The recitals in the said registered instrument unequivocally acknowledge delivery of possession to the father of the plaintiffs. Such an admission, being embodied in a solemn registered document, operates as estoppel against the defendants under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 115 thereof, and precludes them from asserting possession contrary to the express terms of the document. 21. It is a settled proposition of law that revenue records are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer or extinguish title nor determine lawful possession when the same stands governed by a registered conveyance. The finding of the Appellate Court on possession, based solely on revenue entries, is therefore perverse, legally unsustainable, and contrary to settled law. For all these reasons, substantial question of law No.(ii) is answered in the ‘affirmative’. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 22. Based on above observation following conclusions are drawn: i. The finding of the Appellate Court that a suit for declaration and injunction without seeking possession is not maintainable is wholly perverse and contrary to law. Where the plaintiffs’ title is founded on a registered sale deed and possession is asserted pursuant thereto, the suit for declaration coupled with consequential injunction is maintainable, unless dispossession is admitted or established. ii. Further, in the absence of any specific issue framed regarding maintainability or limitation, the Appellate Court gravely erred in holding that the suit is barred by limitation merely on the premise that it was instituted after a lapse of 42 years and 61 days from the date of sale. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 iii. The cause of action arose only when the defendants, after the demise of their father, sought to dispute the plaintiffs’ title by mutating their names by way of inheritance. The finding on limitation, rendered without pleadings, issue, or evidence, is thus vitiated by non-application of mind and suffers from serious infirmities. iv. The finding of the Appellate Court that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 did not enter the witness box and that plaintiff No.3 was incompetent to depose since he was born subsequent to the sale transaction is palpably erroneous and contrary to settled law. v. In a title suit, the primary mode of proof is documentary evidence, particularly registered title deeds, and oral evidence serves only a corroborative role. Plaintiff No.3, though born subsequent to the sale transaction, derives title through his father and is fully competent to - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 depose regarding the title documents and subsequent events. vi. This finding runs directly contrary to the law declared by this Hon’ble Court in Bhimappa & Others v. Ali Sahab & Others (RSA No.733 of 2005), wherein it has been held that in suits founded on title, evidence is to be weighed primarily on documentary proof and not discredited merely on the basis of the witness’s date of birth. vii. The Appellate Court has reversed the decree of the Trial Court without reversing or even adverting to the categorical finding recorded on Additional Issue No.1, wherein the burden was rightly cast upon defendant No.2 to prove that the sale deed dated 13.05.1970 was forged or fabricated. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 viii. The defendants having failed to discharge this burden, the Trial Court recorded a clear finding in favour of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court, while reversing the decree, has neither formulated points for determination nor recorded reasons for reversing this crucial finding, thereby acting in flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ix. Such an omission strikes at the very root of the appellate adjudication and renders the impugned judgment legally unsustainable. x. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court is vitiated by perversity, misapplication of law, and non- compliance with statutory mandates. The findings recorded are contrary to documentary evidence, settled legal principles, and binding - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7879 RSA No. 200368 of 2014 precedents, thereby warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 23. For the following reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 25.08.2014 in R.A.No.24/2014 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Raichur is hereby set aside. iii. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2014 in O.S.No.66/2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Lingasugur is hereby affirmed and restored. iv. Draw decree accordingly. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3 CT:SI