- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200118 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. BALWANTH RAO @ BALU RAO S/O SHANKAR RAO KULKARNI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHALKAPUR, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR. 2. SHIVRAJ S/O LALAPPA MASULDAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILLAGE CHALKAPUR, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SACHIN M.MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: BALBHEEM BAVA S/O GANPATHI BAVA AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHALKAPUR,TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.R.KADLOOR, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (S.D), BHALKI, IN O.S.NO.38/2007 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, SITTING AT BHALKI IN R.A.NO.13/2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This Second Appeal is against the concurrent findings in the suit for declaration of title and injunction. The suit is decreed as prayed for. The defendants filed an appeal and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal. The defendants are in Second Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the appeal can be summarized as under: - The suit properties are the properties bearing Sy.No.309/AA/1 measuring 7 acres and Sy.No.309/B measuring 4 acres 17 guntas in Chalkapur Village, Taluk:Bhalki, District:Bidar. The plaintiff, Bhalbheem Buva claimed ownership over the property on the premise that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 the property is allotted to him in partition of 1989 among his brothers. Thereafter, he claimed that he is the kartha of the family comprising himself and his two sons and accordingly, sought a declaration that he is the owner of the property. The defendants according to the plaintiff are strangers to the family of the plaintiff and he alleged that the defendants are interfering in his possession. 3. The defendants contended that the aforementioned properties namely Sy.No.309/AA/1 and Sy.No.309/B are the properties belonging to Maruti temple and it was inam land and the properties are attached to the said temple. 4. The Trial Court rejected the defence and granted a decree for declaration of title as prayed for by the plaintiff. As already noticed, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the properties involved in this case are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 asserted to be the ownership properties of the plaintiff based on the partition of 1989. The defendants disputed the claim and asserted that the properties are the inam lands. Before the Trial Court, some documents produced by the defendants were disbelieved. Then, the defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and to substantiate their contention relating to the inam land, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and produced additional documents to support their claim. 6. The application was allowed. Evidence was led based on the additional documents. The khasra pahani records were produced and marked. Those records clearly demonstrate that the lands in question are inam lands. However, without any valid reasons, the Trial Court has disbelieved those documents. 7. The First Appellate Court also concluded that there are no title documents and mutations supporting the khasra pahani, and at the same time, without there being - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 any mutation and title deeds, the First Appellate Court accepted the contentions of the plaintiff to hold that the plaintiff is the owner though there are no title deeds to support plaintiff's claim. It is urged that khasra pahani under certain circumstances, in this region is presumed to be valid title document in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the absence of any other material produced by the plaintiff to rebut the presumption arising from khasra pahani, the First Appellate Court could not have confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 8. It is also his further contention that the inam patra which is a conclusive proof of the contention that the properties are inam lands are not considered at all by the First Appellate Court in proper perspective and same resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9. It is further urged that the plaintiff was required to establish his claim that the properties were allotted to his share in the partition of 1989. The evidence on record - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is the owner of suit properties in the light of the defence taken by the defendants that the properties are the inam land. In the light of the defence taken by the defendants and also in view of the additional documents produced by the defendants, the plaintiff was required to prove that before partition of 1989, the family held those properties which could have been partitioned among the members of the plaintiff's family. In the absence of any plea as to how the property is inherited or acquired, merely based on the mutation entry of 1989 in respect of alleged partition, declaration of title could not have been granted disregarding Khasra pahani entries and the inam patra which are produced by the defendants by way of additional documents before the First Appellate Court is the submission. 10. Exhibit P-39 is the document referred to by the First Appellate Court to brush aside the contentions raised by the defendants. Ex.P39 does not refer to any survey - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 number. It only refers to 30 bighas of land which translate into 18 odd acres. It does not refer to name of the village as well. The record of rights produced by the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court marked at Ex.P25 onwards discloses the fact that the property is inam land as per the entry in Column No.6 in those records. These entries have presumptive value and there are no records to show that the plaintiff or his predecessors moved an application for re-grant. There is no order re-granting the land in favour of the plaintiff or plaintiff's predecessor. Thus, the land stood vested in Government under Section 4 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. 11. It is also urged that Exs.D4 to D9 are the records produced by the defendants to establish the contention that the properties are inam lands. 12. It is further urged that the entry in Column No.6 of the property records of the aforementioned two properties have not been questioned by the plaintiff or his predecessor before any Court. These entry in Column - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 Nos.9 and 12 recording plaintiff or his predecessors as the owner of the property is without any basis. If the lands are inam lands, then the ownership can be conferred only on the basis of the application for re-grant and the person eligible for re-grant must satisfy that he has applied for re- grant and based on the right which vested in him before the date of commencement of the Inam Abolition Act. When no such application is filed for re-grant or when no such claim is made, the Trial Court is not justified in granting relief of declaration of title. On these grounds, it is urged to dismiss the suit by allowing the appeal. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on a specific question put by the Court, has to which is the earliest document which records the name of the owner, would submit that Ex.P24 is the record for the year 1956- 58. 14. On a specific question put by this Court as to which document does not refer to the entry relating to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 inam, the answer is Ex.P22, i.e., the Inam Register in Form No.9. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent would urge that the properties in question are not the inam lands. To create inam, there has to be a grant or gift by the holder or Jahagirdar or somebody who is competent to transfer the property as a inam. In the absence of any such documents to hold that the property was gifted, transferred, granted as inam, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. 16. It is also his contention that in the revenue records, consistently name of the plaintiff has been shown as Khatedar for several years and though the entries are found in column No.6 to the effect that the properties are inam lands, there are several entries which would also indicate that the properties are patta lands and this being the position, this Court has to presume that the properties are patta lands and not the inam lands. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 17. It is further submitted that the Endowment Commissioner in his order at Ex.P19 has noted that there are no immovable properties attached to the temple and if the said document is considered in the light of the revenue entries found since 1955-1956, it is very much evident that the properties are not inam properties and they are ownership properties of the plaintiff. 18. Learned counsel also referred to the Register relating to inams to contend that Sy.No.309 is now shown as inam land and all these factors would clearly demonstrate that the suit properties are not the inam lands and the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit. 19. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration: Whether the suit properties are the ownership properties of the plaintiff, or the inam properties as contended by the defendants? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 20. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 21. As can be noticed from the defence raised before the Trial Court, the defendants have taken a specific stand that the properties are service inam lands attached to Maruthi Temple. The defendants have not taken the contention that the properties belong to them. The plaintiff on the other hand contends that the properties are the ownership properties and same are not the inam properties. 22. On perusal of the records placed before this Court, it is noticed that there are few entries which indicate that the plaintiff is the Khatedar of the properties and in the very same records, it is also noticed that the properties are inam lands. In the letter dated 22.08.1992 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner by the Assistant Commissioner, it is observed that certain properties including Sy.No.92 which is now renumbered as Sy.No.309 is the inam property reserved as service inam land. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 23. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the observations made in this letter dated 22.08.1992 by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be looked into as the Assistant Commissioner is not the competent authority to decide anything relating to the inam land. It is also noticed that form No.9 i.e., extract of inam patrika would also reveal that the properties are not recorded as inam lands. There are various documents issued by the Government Officials which are contradictory with each other. 24. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Government also becomes a proper party if not necessary party in the suit to decide whether the properties are ownership properties or not. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Government should be arrayed as a party to the proceedings and the Government is permitted to file its written statement before the Court. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 25. The Government should come out with clear statement as to whether the suit properties are inam lands or not. The Government should also state as to why the said properties are inam properties or as to why the said properties are not inam properties. In other words, the stand of the Government should not be vague and should not be specific. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that impugned judgment and decree to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration keeping in mind the observations made above. 26. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 19.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.38/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhalki and the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 passed in R.A.No.13/2010 by the Additional - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 District Judge, Bidar, sitting at Bhalki, are set aside. iii. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. iv. The plaintiff shall implead the State of Karnataka represented by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner as party to the proceedings. v. It is made clear that the observations made in this order or the judgment setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court should not be construed as a finding in favour of the defendants or against the plaintiff. vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be decided after impleading the Government as a party to the proceedings. vii. Parties are also permitted to lead additional evidence if requires to substantiate their respective claim. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2109 RSA No. 200118 of 2014 Since the plaintiff had of the benefit of an order of temporary injunction before the Trial Court, the said order shall continue till the disposal of the suit. Registry to return the records to the Trial Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/NB List No.: 1 Sl No.:60.2 Ct:VK