- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 876 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 1(A) DADDAGANGAIAH S/O LATE KURLEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES KURLEGOWDA S/O LATE DODDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1A(1) SMT. BORAMMA W/O LATE KURLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 1A(2) VENKATESH B.K. D/O LATE KURLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 1A(3) SMT. JAYANTHI D/O LATE KURLEGOWDA W/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 1A(4) SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE KURLEGOWDA W/O RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SIGN - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 ALL ARE R/AT KESARUMADU POST URDEGERE HOBLI TUMAKUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 1(B) GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE DODDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI URDEGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK 1(C) RAGHU S/O LATE DODDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI URDEGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK …APPELLANTS [BY SRI. V C RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR MANASA B RAO, A1(A)(1) TO A1(A)(4)] AND: 1. 1(A) MAQBOOLIYAMMA W/O MOHAMMED KHAN SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES HASEENABANU W/O LATE AMANUALLA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, BEHIND VEERAHANDRA TEMPLE MARKET ROAD, TUMKUR 1(B) ZARENABANU W/O KHALLULLA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 R/AT WARD NO.10 TIPPUNAGAR MARKET ROAD, TUMKUR 1(C) MUBEEN PASHA W/O LATE MOHAMMED KHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT GCR COLONY I CROSS, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 25.2.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.63/2005 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 31.8.1998 PASSED IN OS.NO.3/1989 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, TUMKUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2014 passed in R.A. No.63 of 2005 by the learned Fast Track Court, Tumkur and the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1998 passed in O.S. No.3 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 1989 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Tumkur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1974 from Abdul Khadar, son of Dastagir Khan. 5. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed and the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records and the Pahani stood in the name of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 plaintiff till 1988-89 and the plaintiff was paying tax on the suit schedule property. 6. The defendant had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. He started to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendant not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, however, the defendant did not give any heed to the requests made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and injunction. 7. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from Abdul Khadar, son of Dastgir Khan. It is contended that Abdul Khadar, son of Dastgir Khan - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 had no right, title or interest to sell the suit title property in favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed. It is contended that the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 31.10.1974. 8. It is contended that one Doddegowda was the propositus of the family and he had three children, namely Palyada Thimmaiah, Budda Thimmaiah and Kurle Gowda. It is contended that the land bearing Survey No.67/15 of Bommanahalli village was purchased by the joint family in the name of K.Muniswamaiah in 1938 under a registered sale deed dated 20.05.1938. 9. The children of late Doddegowda got partitioned the joint family properties among themselves under an oral partition and they are enjoying their respective properties peacefully. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 10. It is contended that there was no partition in writing. The grandchildren of Doddegowda entered into a partition during 1976 as evidenced by the Palupatti dated 28.12.1976. The land bearing Survey No.67/15, measuring 24 guntas had fallen to the share of the defendant herein, and 24 guntas of land in Survey No.67/15 fell to the share of Doddegowda and an extent of 25 guntas in Survey No.67/15 fallen to the share of Timmegowda and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. 11. The plaintiff by suppressing the revenue proceedings has created a sale deed date dated 31.10.1974 and the revenue entries were got created. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. 12. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant denying the knowledge of oral partition among the sons of Doddegowda and has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 contended that Thimmegowda was enjoying the eastern 37 guntas in Survey No.67/15 which was purchased under the registered sale deed dated 20.05.1938 and the remaining 36 guntas was in possession of Dastgir Khan and his son Abdul Khadar and the sons of Doddegowda or anybody were never in possession of the entire 1 acre 33 guntas in Survey No.67/15 at any point of time. Hence, he prays to decree the suit. 13. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves title over schedule property ? 2. Whether she proves exclusive possession over the schedule property as on the date of the suit? 3. Whether she proves interference? 4. What decree or order? Additional Issues: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 1. Whether the defendant proves that he has perfected his title to the schedule property by adverse possession? 14. The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself through his power of attorney holder as PW1, examined one more witness as PW2 and marked 21 documents as Exhibits P1 to P21. 15. In rebuttal, the defendant was examined as DW1, examined one more witness as DW2 and marked 24 documents as Exhibits D1 to Exhibit D24. 16. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and re-appreciating the evidence on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative; additional issue in the negative; and issue No.4, as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs. It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the western 36 guntas of land in Survey No.67/15, measuring 1 acre 33 guntas totally, and granted a decree for permanent - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 17. The defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.3 of 1989 dated 31.08.1998 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.63 of 2005 on the file of Fast Track Court, Tumkur. 18. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for its consideration: “(i) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is perverse, capricious and liable to be interfered at the hands of this court? (ii) What order?” 19. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2, as per the final order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 The appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.02.2014. 20. The defendant aggrieved by the impugned judgments filed this regular second appeal. 21. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the LRs of the deceased defendant and the LRs of the deceased plaintiff. 22. The learned counsel for the LRs of the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction alleging that she had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, however, the plaintiff has not produced any records to show that her vendor had a title over the suit schedule property. In the absence of vendor's clear title, the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title or interest under the registered sale deed dated 31.10.1974. The said aspect has not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 been considered by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. 23. He submits that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the ownership by establishing a valid chain of title, which inherently means they must prove that their vendor had a legal right and title to convey the property in the first place. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 24. Per contra, the learned counsel for the LRs of the deceased plaintiff, submits that Abdul Khadar son of Dastagir Khan had right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. He had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1974 and the vendor of the plaintiff put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property. He also submits that based on the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 registered sale deed dated 31.10.1974, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records. 25. She submits that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendant made an attempt to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 26. This Court vide order dated 27.10.2022 framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are justified in granting declaration of title in favour of plaintiffs in the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 absence of proof relating to title of the plaintiffs' vendors in respect of suit schedule property?" Reg. Substantial Question of Law: 27. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction on the ground that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from Abdul Khadar under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1974 and the vendor of the plaintiff put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property. Based on the registered sale deed, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 28. PW-1 has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 29. In order to establish that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from Abdul Khadar, son of Dastagir Khan, under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1974, the sale deed is marked as Exhibit P-2. 30. The plaintiff has produced Exhibit P-1/a special power of attorney wherein the plaintiff has executed the said power of attorney in favour of PW-1 to depose on behalf of the plaintiff. 31. Exhibit P-3 is the Mutation Register extract, which clearly discloses that the mutation was effected based on the registered sale deed as per Exhibit P-1. 32. Exhibits P-4 to P-11 are the certified copies of RTC extracts pertaining to the suit land which clearly disclose that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. 33. Exhibit P-12 is the certified copy of the order in RRT No.37/1987-88. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 34. An objection was raised by the defendant at the time of mutation. The Assistant Commissioner has passed an order directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. 35. The defendant, in the written statement, had specifically denied that the vendor of the plaintiff had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1. He has deposed that, the suit property has fallen to the share of the defendant in palu patti and produced the original document which is marked as Exhibit D-1; Exhibits D-2 and D-3 are the registered sale deeds; Exhibit D-4 is the atlas copy; Exhibit D-5 and D-6 are the copies of mahazar; Exhibits D-7 and D-8 are the ledger extracts; Exhibit D-9 and D-10 are the RTC extracts - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 which clearly discloses that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. 36. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not produced any records to establish the title of the vendor of the plaintiff. Further, in the registered sale deed also, there is no recital regarding how the vendor of the plaintiff acquired the property. In the absence of the title of the vendor of the plaintiff, the vendor of the plaintiff has no right, title or interest to convey the said property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. 37. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar1, has held in paragraph No.29 as follows: “29. It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo 1 (2024) 13 SCC 553 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 dat quod non habet i.e. “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”. In the present case, the plaintiff's vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner's order, could not have conveyed the same to her vendee.” 38. Considering the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, admittedly, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff's vendor and further, the defendant has also objected for entering the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records before the Revenue Authorities. The Assistant Commissioner has passed an order directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his vendor’s title. 39. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not produced any records to establish how his vendor has acquired the title. In the absence of title chain of the suit schedule property, the Trial Court could not have decreed the suit for declaration of title and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 permanent injunction. The Trial Court, placing reliance on the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and revenue entries, has decreed the suit without considering the vendor's title. 40. In view of the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, admittedly the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction and it is for the plaintiff to establish his case independently by not depending on the weakness of the defendant. In a suit for declaration of title, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for grant of such a declaration. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph No.15 as follows: 2 (2014) 2 SCC 269 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 “15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.” 41. Admittedly, both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments based on the weakness of the defendant. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of P. Kishore Kumar (supra) and Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra). 42. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous, and the same are liable to be set aside. 43. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28042 RSA No. 876 of 2014 44. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed; ii. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside; iii. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed; iv. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK, PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1