- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1005 OF 2014 (DEC) BETWEEN: SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE MUDLAGIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, GANIGARA BEEDI, NEAR OLD KEB OFFICE, B.H ROAD, GUBBI TOWN – 572216. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H V MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RUKKAMMA D/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, GANIGARA BEEDI, NEAR OLD KEB OFFICE, B.H ROAD, GUBBI TOWN, TUMKUR ISTRICT 572216 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE 17.10.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3/2008 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), JMFC, GUBBI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2014 passed in R.A. No.73 of 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi and the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2008 passed in O.S. No.3 of 2008 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gubbi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of title to the property and consequential relief of a permanent injunction against the defendant. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property, and the said property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff’s husband, namely Mudalagiriaiah S/o. Thimmaiah. 6. One Thimmashetty had two sons, namely Thimmaiah and Mudalagiriaiah; Thimmaiah had a son by the name Mudalagiriaiah, who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff and the suit schedule property was granted in favour of her husband by the Land Tribunal. Since, the date of the grant, the plaintiff’s husband was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and later on, after the death of her husband, the plaintiff became the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 7. It is contended that the defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff, and entered his name in the revenue records by colluding with the revenue officials. 8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the entries in the name of defendant, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal came to be dismissed, and a liberty was reserved to the parties to approach the Civil Court. 9. In response to the summons that was issued, the defendant appeared; however, she did not file a written statement. 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, and marked seven documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. 11. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, framed the following points for its consideration: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit?” 12. After consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court answered the point in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 17.10.2008. 13. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit in O.S. No.3 of 2008, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.73 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi. 14. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: “(i) Whether the impugned judgment is illegal, capricious, opposed to law, facts and evidence on record? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment required interference at the hands of this Court? (ii) What order?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 15. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, and point No.3, as per the final order and consequently, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 12.04.2014, and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.3 of 2008. 16. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Though the Court notice was issued to the defendant, despite the service of notice, the defendant remained unrepresented. 18. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 19. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has produced the voter's list to prove that the plaintiff is the wife of Mudalagiriaiah, and the said aspect has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts below, and the Courts below - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. 20. He also submits that the defendant has not filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court could have decreed the suit in the absence of a written statement, and rebuttal evidence. On the contrary, it has dismissed the suit. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. He also submits that the plaintiff is drawing a widow pension and produced the widow pension card marked as Ex.P-6. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 21. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2016 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) “ Were the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 injunction ignoring the material documents Exhibits P5, 6 and 7 (voter list, widow pension card and order of the Land Tribunal – granting occupancy rights)? (ii) Were the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff when defendant has not filed any written statement nor stepped into the witness box to substantiate his case? (iii) Were the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos. 1 to 3: 22. All the substantial questions are interlinked, with each other and they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 23. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, contending that the suit land was granted in favour of her husband as per Exhibit P7. After his demise, the plaintiff succeeded to the suit-schedule property - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 as a Class-I legal heir of the deceased Mudalagiriaiah. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, and is trying to interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. 24. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW1 and got marked 7 documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. Although the defendant appeared through counsel, she did not file a written statement. 25. From the perusal of the records produced by the plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff, except producing the voter’s list, widow pension card and the order of the land Tribunal, has not produced any valid records to establish that she is the wife of the deceased Mudalagiriaiah. Though the plaintiff is claiming a declaration of title by way of succession, unless the plaintiff establishes that she is the wife of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 deceased Mudalagiriaiah, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek a relief of declaration of title. 26. No doubt, it is true that the plaintiff has produced the voter's list, widow pension card, and the order of the land Tribunal at Exhibits P5 to P7, but both the Courts below have considered Exhibits P5 to P7 and recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of Mudalagiriyaiah, by producing sufficient documents. In the absence of establishing the alleged relationship as a husband and wife between the plaintiff and Mudalagiriaiah, the question of granting a relief of declaration of title regarding the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, would not arise. 27. Merely the fact that the defendant has not filed a written statement, is not a ground to decree the suit of the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff establishes her title over the suit schedule property. Even though - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendant's side, the plaintiff has failed to establish her relationship with the deceased Mudalagiriaiah. 28. Hence, both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 29. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative. 30. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following Order: ORDER (I) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (II) The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (III) No order as to the costs. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11004 RSA No. 1005 of 2014 (IV) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24