- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 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 FIRST APPEAL NO. 5005 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. BALWANTH RAO @ BALU RAO S/O SHANKAR RAO KULKARNI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHALKAPUR, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR. 2. SHIVARAJ S/O LALAPPA MASULDAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILLAGE CHALKAPUR, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SACHIN M.MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRIPATH BAVA S/O HANAMANTH BAVA AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILLAGE CHALKAPUR, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.R.KADLOOR, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), BHALKI IN O.S.NO.45/2007 DATED 19.12.2009 AND REJECT 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:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 THIS REGULAR FIRST 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 appeal is arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.45/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhalki. The said suit is for relief of declaration of title and injunction. 2. The suit in O.S.No.45/2007 is filed by Sripath Bava son of Hanmanth Bava. The suit is filed in respect of 9 immovable properties. The plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of suit schedule properties and sought injunction against the defendants. 3. The suit is filed in respect of 9 immoveable properties described in the schedule. 4. The defendants contested the suit and took a stand that the properties are inam lands and the properties - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 are attached to Hanuman temple of Chalkapur and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence has concluded that the plaintiff is the owner of the properties and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree, the defendants are in Second Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant / appellants has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to produce documents relating to inam. It is urged that the said documents are necessary for adjudication of case on hand and also urged that the documents being public records same shall be considered in evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has objected to the production of said documents on the ground that valid reasons are not assigned for non production of documents before the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 8. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit and the said decree is based on authentic revenue records which have been maintained since long. It is also the further contention that there are no records to hold that the properties are inam lands as contended by the defendants/appellants. It is also urged that no ground is made out to produce additional documents by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of Code. 9. It is also urged that the property bearing Sy No. Sy.No.223 is purchased under Ex.P2 - registered sale deed is not at all inam land at any point of time. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. The following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether the appellants have made out a case for production of additional documents? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 ii. Whether the appellants are able to establish that the suit lands are inam lands? iii. Whether the respondent is able to establish that the property bearing Sy.No.223 which is purchased under Ex.P2 - registered sale deed dated 26.07.1983 is the ownership land of the respondent? 12. Learned counsel for the appellants on instructions by the appellants would submit that the appellants have no claim on property bearing Sy.No.223 measuring 01 acre 16 guntas situated at Chalkapur village, which is the property purchased by the respondent and the appellants have no claim on the said property. The said submission is placed on record. Hence, the appeal in respect of the said property is dismissed. 13. As far as other properties are concerned, it is noticed that the defendants have raised contention that the properties are inam lands. This Court has also noticed that few records would disclose the entry to the effect that properties are inam properties. At the same time, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 revenue records would also indicate that the properties are the ownership properties of the respondent. The Government records in this regard are not consistent. On what basis the entry relating to the inam is recorded in the property records is not forthcoming. Some Government records would indicate that the properties are not inam properties and some other documents would indicate that the properties are inam properties. 14. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Government would also become proper party to the proceedings. 15. 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.45/2007 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.,) Bhalki, are set aside in respect of all properties except property bearing Sy.No.223 measuring 1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 acre 16 guntas situated in Chalkapur Village, Taluk Bhalki. iii. The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of Sy.No.223 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas situated in Chalkapur Village, Taluk Bhalki are confirmed. [ iv. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in respect of the suit properties except Sy.No.223 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas situated in Chalkapur Village, Taluk Bhalki. v. The plaintiff shall implead the State of Karnataka represented by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner as party to the proceedings. vi. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court should not be construed as a finding in favour of the defendants or against the plaintiff. vii. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be decided after impleading the Government as a party to the proceedings. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2110 RFA No. 5005 of 2010 viii. Parties are also permitted to lead additional evidence if required to substantiate their respective claim. ix. 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. x. Registry to return the records to the Trial Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 Ct:VK