- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. G. RAMESH., S/O GOVINDARAJU, AGED 48 YEARS, R/A MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NITISH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O PUTTAIAH,R/O HALMIDI, BANNUR POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115. 2. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 3. SRI NAVEENA AGED 24 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 4. SRI. T.C. PRASANNA, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O CHANDRU, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 5. SMT. DODDAMMA, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O LATE HUCHAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGD 47 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 7. CHANDRU, AGD 45 YEARS, S/O LATE HUCHAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 8. SRI. GURURAJANAIKA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O GANGANAIKA, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 9. SRI. T.R. UMESH RAJ URS, AGED 50 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 S/O T.N. RANGARAJA URS, R/O NALLUR GATE, MARUTHINAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 10. SRI. PUNEETH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 11. SRI. POORNESH, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED 19 YEARS, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R9, SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R10 & R11, R8 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED:13.12.2018, R1 TO R3, R6 & R7 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DEAD R5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 02.09.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.4/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal by defendant No.4 under Section 96 of CPC challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2016 in O.S.No.04/2012 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagalur (for short, 'the Trial Court'), only to the extent of Item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. Shorn of details, brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under: The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking following releifs: a) For Partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of plaintiff No.1, half share in the 1/4th share, of plaintiff No.2 and 3 collectively and half share in 1/4th share of plaintiff No.4 in all schedule properties by metes and bounds; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 b) For an order to enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC; c) For Court costs and such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiff No.1, defendant No.2 and late Lakshmamma are the daughters and defendant No.3 is the son of defendant No.1. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of late Gangamma. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the purchasers of the properties. 5. The Genealogical Tree produced at Ex.P13 is extracted for easy reference of relationship of the parties, which reads as under: CdÓ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå (¥ÀªÀw) wªÀÄäªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw) | ºÀÄZÀÑAiÀÄå ªÀÄUÀ (¥ÀªÀw) zÉÆqÀتÀÄä ¸ÉÆ¸É 75 ªÀµÀð vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ : ºÀÄZÀÑAiÀÄå (¥ÀªÀw) zÉÆqÀتÀÄä ¥Àwß 75 ªÀµÀð 1) dAiÀĪÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 44 ªÀµÀð (®UÀߪÁVzÉ) 2) ®PÀëöäªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 42 ªÀµÀð (®UÀߪÁVzÉ) 3) UÀAUÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ (¥ÀªÀw) 1) PÀȵÀÚªÀÄÆwð ªÀÄUÀ 21 ªÀµÀð 2) £À«Ã£À ªÀÄUÀ 19 ªÀµÀð 4) ZÀAzÀÄæ ªÀÄUÀ 40 ªÀµÀð ªÀÄAdļÀ ¸ÉÆ¸É 32 ªÀµÀð 1) ¥Àæ¸À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ 15 ªÀµÀð 2) ¦æAiÀiÁ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 9 ªÀµÀð - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 6. The claim of the plaintiffs was that late Huchaiah has been granted suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 19611, from the Government. The said Huchaiah has been granted lands on behalf of the family as entire family was cultivating the lands jointly, along with Huchaiah. Late Huchaiah was working as Kulivadi - an erstwhile village Office which has been abolished after coming into force of Act of 1961. Since the properties were granted to the benefit of the family, Huchaiah was not having any exclusive right over the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs along with other defendants i.e., defendants 1 to 3 & 7 and 8 having equal rights in the properties. 7. It is their further case that defendant No.4 taking advantage of the illiteracy of late Huchaiah, got the sale deed executed in his favor on 11.05.2001 against the rights of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.4 made defendants 1 to 3 to subscribe their signatures/ thumb impressions without 1 Act of 1961 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 allowing defendants 1 to 3 to go through the contents of the sale deed and succeeded in grabbing the properties belonging to the family. The sale deed is a product of fraud by obtaining thumb impression by taking advantage of illiteracy of defendants 1 to 3. It is their further claim that defendant No.4 thereafter, created number of documents using the signatures and thumb impressions of innocent depressed class people suppressing the contents of the document. Subsequently, defendant No.4 sold a part of the property in favor of defendants 5 & 6 by playing fraud. 8. The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs demanded their share with the first defendant, at that point of time defendant No.1 disclosed that defendant No.4 got the property transferred in his name without disclosing the contents dated 11.05.2001. Accordingly, cause of action arose in the first week of October 2011 and the suit seeking reliefs supra was filed in O.S.No.04/2012. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 9. In response to the notice, defendants 1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 though served with notice, remained absent and placed ex-parte. Defendants 4 and 6 appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate written statement. 10. Defendant No.4 in his written statement denied the entire plaint averments and has taken a specific contention that late Huchaiah was working as Kulivadi - an erstwhile Village Office and re-granted the land after coming into force of Act of 1961. It is his further specific contention that the land was allotted in the individual capacity of Huchaiah and was never to the family. Huchaiah being the absolute owner, executed sale deed in his favor on 11.05.2001 and till his death i.e., on 19.09.2001, he has not challenged the sale deed. Under the sale deed dated 11.05.2001, defendant No.4 has purchased two items of the properties i.e., Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule viz., Item No.1 in Sy.No.18/p measuring 31 Guntas and Item No.2 in Sy.No.18/P measuring 23 Guntas, both situated at Thegur Village, Chikmagalur Taluk. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 11. Subsequent to the sale deed, defendant No.4 has sold a part of the land in Sy.No.18/p measuring 23 Gutnas i.e., Item No.2 of suit schedule in favor of defendants 5 & 6 under registered sale deeds. It is the specific case of defendant No.4 that the plaintiffs are having other properties viz., Item Nos.3 to 8 of the suit schedule, however they have filed suit only with respect to the properties which are sold, as such for non-joinder of entire properties the suit itself is not maintainable for partial partition. He has further contended that another person Janardhan Raj to whom he has sold the property has not been made as a party to the suit, in these circumstances the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary party. With this defendant No.4, sought to dismiss the suit filed only in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 before the amendment. 12. Defendant No.6 in his written statement, denied the entire plaint averments, except certain admitted facts regarding relationship of plaintiff No.1, defendant No.2 and late Gangamma. The written statement of defendant No.6 is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 more or less similar to the written statement of defendant No.4. He is the subsequent purchaser from defendant No.4 in respect of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.18/P1 measuring 23 Guntas. 13. Subsequent to filing of Written Statements by defendants 4 and 6, the plaintiffs got amended the plaint schedule adding other properties left out by them and also added other defendants, who are necessary parties, in view of the contentions raised by both defendants 4 and 6. 14. The Trial Court after completion of pleadings, framed the following Issues and Additional Issues: "ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties and they have got right to claim share over the suit properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed obtained by the defendant No.4 is by fraud and it is not binding on them? 3. Whether the defendant No.6 prove that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit item No.2 for valid consideration? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 4. Whether the defendant No.6 prove that late Huchaiah was the absolute owner of the suit property? 5. Whether the defendant No.6 prove that the suit properties were sold for the family benefits vide sale deed dated 11.05.2001? 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 7. Whether the suit is properly valued and requisite court fee is paid on the plaint? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed in the suit? 9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the mesne profits? 10. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: 1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-inclusion of all the partible properties?" 15. To substantiate their claim, plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1 and produced 13 documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to P13. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 and defendant No.6 examined himself as DW2, they produced 6 documents which were marked as Ex.D1 to D6. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 16. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and on appreciation of documents placed on record, decreed the suit granting 1/10th share to the plaintiffs and other defendants as per the Judgment answering all the Issues in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants 4 and 6. The Trial Court in its Judgment has held that in terms of the objects of Act of 1961 which describes that in view of abolition of hereditary village officers, viz., Patels, Shanubogs, Kulkarnies and inferior village servants and by the Act of 1978, the lands which were granted to hereditary Village Officers since abolished were re-granted to the persons holding the office in order to see that they may continue to enjoy the land. Thus, the Trial Court has stated that the lands were granted on the hereditary holding of the office by the Villagers and since deceased Huchaiah working as Kulivadi, as such, on the basis of Kulivadi profession in the village, the lands have been granted in his favor. In these circumstances, the office held by deceased Huchaiah was hereditary office, as such, the properties allotted were - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 the family properties and held that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, 7 and 8 along with deceased Huchaiah. 17. The Trial Court while appreciating the defence evidence has stated that defendant No.6 - DW.2 has admitted that, the lands were granted, since Huchaiah and his family members were cultivating the land. Thus, the Trial Court holds that the lands were granted on joint cultivation of the family. Further, stated that there are other admissions in the cross-examination which indicates that the properties were cultivating on behalf of the family and the lands were granted for the benefit of family and not in individual capacity of late Huchaiah. 18. The Trial Court further observed that as per the provisions of the Act of 1961, the lands were sold in the absence of any permission under the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the proviso added by the Act of 1984. In the absence of necessary permission, the land sold were void- - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 ab-initio and as such, there is no sale deed in favor of defendants 4 and 6. 19. The Trial Court has also observed that the Sub Section (3) to Section 5 of Inam Abolition Act, prescribes that any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section 3 is null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be forfeited and to vest in the State Government and Sub Section (3) further provides that if the person who has transferred the land in contravention of Sub Section (3) is not alive, after resumption while disposing of such land, preference shall be given to the heirs of such person. Thus, the Trial Court holds that the legislators inserted this proviso which makes it clear that the grant is in favor of the Family, otherwise there is no necessity of giving preference to the surviving legal heirs of the grantee while disposing of the restored land which is transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 20. The Trial Court has further observed that the plaintiffs have taken a specific contention that the Sale Deed is a product of fraud. Defendants 1 to 3 neither made known nor permitted to go through the contents of the document before they were made to subscribe their signatures or thumb impression to the document. For this, the Trial Court observed that defendant No.4 got the mutation in his favor in the year 2003-04 though the sale deed was executed in the year 2001. In the interregnum, the properties were mutated in the name of defendant No.3 immediately after the death of late Huchaiah. This presupposes that the properties though sold were continued with the family and there is no handing over of possession to defendant No.4 under the Sale Deed at Ex.P1. 21. The Trial Court further observed that the mutation produced at Ex.P series and D series also states that the mutation was effected in favor of defendant No.4 in 2003-04 on the basis of sale deed dated 16.01.2004. Defendant No.4 has not explained how he purchased the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 land in 2004 from late Huchaiah and others, when admittedly Huchaiah died on 19.09.2001. In these circumstances, the Trial Court holds that the Sale Deed at Ex.P1 is not a genuine sale deed and there is no right flowed in favor of defendant No.4 and then to defendant No.6. Even defendant No.4 has not pleaded anything regarding bonafide purchaser, as such he cannot claim any right under the Sale Deed so also defendant No.6. With these reasons, the Trial Court answered all the Issues in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant Nos.4 and 6 and granted share stated supra. It is this Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is called in question by Defendant No.4 restricting his rights only with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. 22. Heard, Sri.Nitish.K.N, learned counsel appearing for Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.K.R.Satish, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri.Vardhaman V.Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 and Sri.J.N.Naveen, learned counsel - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 appearing for respondents 6, 7, 10 and 11. Respondent No.8 though served, remained unrepresented. Vide order dated 13.12.2018, respondents 1 to 3, 6 & 7 are treated as legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5. 23. Sri.Nitish.K.N, argued the case against the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court on following points: (i) The plaintiffs have not produced the Grant Order in order to show whether the office was a hereditarily office held by Huchaiah or in his individual capacity, to substantiate in terms of Indian Evidence Act to claim any right over the suit schedule properties, especially Item Nos.1 and 2. (ii) There is no pleading or evidence by the plaintiffs or by other defendants i.e., the family members, to contend that the office was a hereditary office succeeded by Huchaiah, as such the property be considered as family property in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1961, which has been given much weightage by the Trial Court in the absence of such pleadings and evidence. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 (iii) The Trial Court swayed on a stray admission by defendant No.6 examined as DW.2. The Trial Court failed to consider that the entire evidence be read to give a full meaning and appreciation to the evidence and not a stray sentence here and there. The Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that it is the plaintiff who has to prove his case on his own and not on the weakness of the defendants. (iv) The Trial Court swayed much on the fact of the recitals in the Sale Deed, wherein defendant No.4 opted for the presence of other family members to sign the Sale Deed and assumed that the properties are granted for the benefit of the entire family and not in the individual capacity of Huchaiah. (v) Though the Trial Court at Paragraph 18 of its Judgment has specifically stated that the parties to the proceedings have not produced the Grant Order. However, ignoring the recitals in the sale deed, has held that the sale deed was executed in the absence of - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 any proper permission under the provisions of Act of 1961. There is a specific recital in the sale deed which states that the Tahsildar has given No Objection Certificate as per the Order dated 01.09.1998 in respect of 39 Guntas of land and there is an Endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner stating that there is no prohibition for sale of land in respect of 23 Guntas vide Endorsement dated 22.11.1996. The Trial Court has observed that the Endorsement is only with respect to 23 Guntas and not in respect to 39 Guntas of land which was sold under the Sale Deed and the Tahsildar has no power to issue No Objection Certificate with respect to 39 Guntas of land. The Trial Court has failed to consider that the Deputy Commissioner's endorsement covers the entire lands granted under the land. It cannot be in isolation only with respect to 23 Guntas of land, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has clearly stated there is no prohibition for transfer of the land. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 (vi) The Trial Court has given more weightage to Inam Abolition Act, whereas the land granted under the Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961. The preference granted in Sub Section (3) of Section 5 of Inam Abolition Act cannot be construed to mean that the lands were granted for the entire family and not to the person in his individual capacity. The intent of legislature is to be interpreted to the extent it was intended and not beyond the scope and not extending it any further than the intention of the legislature which is not specific in the Act, the reason of preference may be for any other reason. The preference given in the provision cannot be construed and deemed as the properties were intended to be granted to the entire family of the grantee and not to the grantee individually. (vii) It is nobody's case either in the pleadings or evidence that defendant No.4 got executed the Sale Deed from Huchaiah on 16.01.2004. The Judgment cannot be - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 founded on any assumption and presumptions or surmises and conjectures. The Trial Court has gone out of the pleadings and evidence and recorded a finding which is alien to the pleadings and the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs neither pleaded regarding Sale Deed dated 16.01.2004 nor led any oral evidence to that effect. (viii) The Trial Court only on the mutation effected after the death of Huchaiah has come to a conclusion that neither the properties have been sold nor possession of the properties have been delivered in favor of defendant No.4 under Ex.P1 Sale Deed. This finding of the Trial Court is against the pleadings as well as evidence of PW.1, especially in the cross examination wherein the PW.1 in categorical terms admitted that the property was sold in the year 2001 to defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 is in possession of the land. In these circumstances, the finding of the Trial Court - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 against the defendant No.4 in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 is required to be set aside. (ix) The answer of the Trial Court to Additional Issue No.2 specifically proves the conduct of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs earlier have filed the suit only in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 without disclosing the other properties of the family which were also part of the grant as per the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got amended the plaint subsequent to the pleadings and contentions by the defendant Nos.4 and 6 in respect of other properties of the family. This shows the conduct and intention of plaintiff. This contention gained strength with the admission of PW.1 in her cross- examination that, it is defendant No.3 who has supplied all the documents to file the suit and produced the same in the evidence. To buttress his argument, counsel has taken us through the cross-examination recorded on 08.08.2014, in the first two lines PW.1 has categorically admitted that the documents to file the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 suit has been provided by defendant No.3 and further admits that the suit properties are in possession of defendant Nos.4 and 6. Further, in her cross- examination on 09.09.2014, she has clearly admitted that the suit lands were granted in the name of her father Late Huchaiah. Neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence of plaintiffs, there is anything to suggest that the Village Office of Kulivadi was a hereditary office of the family, continued and succeeded by Huchaiah as on the date of coming into force of Act of 1961. (x) The plaintiffs have taken a stand that defendant No.4 obtained signatures/ thumb impressions of defendants 1 to 3 to the document/ sale deed without allowing them to go through the contents of the sale deed, however none of defendants 1 to 3 appeared before the Court to substantiate the said stand by filing any pleading nor entered the witness box to strengthen the case of the plaintiff, which clearly shows collusiveness - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 of the parties in filing of the suit only to cause harassment to innocent defendant No.4. 24. In these circumstances, Sri.Nitish, sought to allow the appeal by setting aside the finding only with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule, which defendant No.4 purchased under the Sale Deed dated 11.05.2001 executed by Huchaiah during his lifetime. 25. Though Sri.K.R.Satish., representing respondent No.4 tried to persuade us supporting the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, unable to explain the reason for non-production of grant order which is the basis for claiming right of partition when the suit was originally filed only with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule. Further, learned counsel is not in a position to answer the query as to the reasons assigned by the Trial Court to hold that the office held by Huchaiah was hereditary and indeed succeeded by Huchaiah through his ancestors. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 26. Sri.Vardhaman V.Gunjal., supported the arguments of the appellant stating that he is claiming rights under appellant as he has purchased the property subsequently under the registered sale deed. 27. Though Sri.J.N.Naveen., learned counsel appearing for defendants tried to support the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, but he is standing in toe with learned counsel for respondent No.4 and unable to answer the same queries put to counsel Sri.K.R.Satish. 28. Upon considering the rival submissions, the following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Trial Court is right in answering Issue Nos.1 to 6 in favor of the plaintiffs and decreeing the suit in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties? (2) Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court requires any interference - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 at the hands of this Court in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties? 29. Our answer to the above points is as under: Point No.1: In the Negative. Point No.2: In the Affirmative, for the following: REASONS 30. It is trite that a Court cannot pass a verdict traveling outside the pleadings and evidence placed before it. It is also trite that the verdict be based on pleadings. In other words, the verdict of the Court cannot be based solely on its own accord in the absence of pleadings and evidence to that effect. The settled law mandates that the findings recorded by the Court must be based on the issues raised on the pleadings i.e., plaint and written statement and supported by evidence oral and documentary The Court must record its findings on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence recorded in furtherance of the same. The pleadings are the bedrock of Issues. The Court must rest its reasons and findings on the pleadings and issues founded - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 thereon and cannot accord its own findings in the absence of pleadings and evidence to that effect. 31. In the case on hand, the Trial Court while answering Issue Nos.1 to 6 in Paragraph Nos.9 to 14 has held that in view of the object of Act of 1961, which reads as, 'in pursuance of the Government Policy of abolition of hereditary village officers, viz., Patels, Shanubogs, Kulkarnies and inferior village servants in order to put the revenue administration at the point where it touches people most, in-consonance with the modern spirit. These officers are a relic to the old feudal system, the Government introduced the bill which provides for abolition of hereditary village officers' and in view of the Act of 1978, that the Village Office held by Huchaiah is hereditary office, as such the land granted is to the benefit of entire family and not to the said Huchaiah in his individual capacity. 32. A perusal of plaint explicitly clears that no where the plaintiffs have contended that Huchaiah was holding the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 hereditary village office which he has succeeded from his ancestors. All that is stated in the plaint is Huchaiah and his family members were cultivating the schedule properties, Huchaiah was working as Kulivadi and after coming into force of the Act of 1961, the properties were granted to Huchaiah and his family member to the benefit of entire family. There is nothing stated even to suggest that Huchaiah was holding a hereditary officer succeeded by his ancestors. In the absence of such pleadings, only on the basis of the language used in Act, which provides for abolition of Hereditary Village Offices, the Trial Court has presumed that the office held by Huchaiah was hereditary office. In the light of the settled position of law that the Court in the absence of any materials before it, especially the pleadings and the oral evidence in furtherance of that and can not travel beyond that and in the absence of any issues to that effect, give a finding on its own accord, is against the spirit of law and not sustainable. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 33. Even a perusal of Issues, especially Issue No.1 depicts that is not properly framed. There is no pleading to the effect that the properties are claimed as ancestral joint family properties. All that is claimed in Paragraph 3 & 4 of the plaint is Huchaiah was working as Kulivadi and all the family members cultivating the said land along with Huchaiah and deceased Huchaiah has applied for grant of land on behalf of the family members. The said pleadings in paragraphs 3 and 4 are extracted below, which reads as under: "3. The husband of the 1st defendant late Huchaiah obtained grant of schedule properties under the provisions of village Officers Abolition Act, from the Government. The deceased Huchaiah had applied for grant of the land on behalf of the family members as the said Huchaiah and his family members were cultivating the schedule properties jointly as the land was left from Villager Officers. Deceased Huchaiah was working as Kulivadi and after the abolition of Village Officers, the schedule land were granted to deceased Huchaiah and his family, as all of them were cultivating the schedule properties jointly. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 4. The said Huchaiah and his children were cultivating the schedule properties, jointly, considering this aspect the Government had granted the land in favour of the family of deceased Huchaiah and grant certificate was issued in the name of Huchaiah as he was the head of the Family. Though the lands were granted in the name of the Huchaiah he had no exclusive right over the schedule properties as the grant was made, considering the fact that the members of the family of deceased Huchaiah were cultivating the same and on that basis the lands were granted. Thus the deceased Huchaiah and his children were having equal right over the schedule properties." 34. In these circumstances, the finding of the Trial Court that the office held by Huchaiah is a hereditary office and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs and not the absolute properties of deceased Huchaiah is unsustainable in law. 35. The Trial Court though records that the parties to the proceedings have not produced the Grant Order or Certificate before the Court, but relied on the recitals of Ex.P1 i.e., the Sale Deed, wherein there is a specific recital - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 that the land under the sale deed was granted in favor of Huchaiah as per the order dated 06.03.1990. Further records that in furtherance of the Grant Order, mutation order was passed as per MR No.4/1990-91 and name of Huchaiah came to be entered in the RTC pertaining to the said lands. The Trial Court swayed much on the provisions of the Act of 1961 which prescribes that any land which is granted to the holder of the Village Office in an enfranchised inam shall not be transferred with the previous consent of the Deputy Commissioner which shall be granted on payment of an amount equal to 15 times the amount of full assessment of the land. There is a specific recital in Ex.P1 stating that there is an endorsement issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the District stating that there is no prohibition for sale of land. Though it is stated in respect of 23 Guntas, the Trial Court given much weightage only to the extent of land mentioned to 23 Guntas. The lands sold to defendant No.4 are part of grant, and once there is an endorsement issued by the concerned Deputy - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 Commissioner that, there is no prohibition for alienation of the property, the same holds good to all the properties granted under the Act and not restricted only to 23 Guntas. The Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and erroneously held that the lands were sold in violation of the provisions contained in the Act of 1961 as such the same is void. Even to apply the law to the case, there are no facts to that effect pleaded in the pleadings by the plaintiff. All that is pleaded were in the two paragraphs which we have already extracted above. In these circumstances, the application of Sub Section (3) to Section 5 of Inam Abolition Act as considered by the Trial Court does not arise. The Trial Court has given more weightage to Sub Section (3) to Section 5 of Inam Abolition Act, which prescribes that once the lands which were sold in violation of provisions, resumed, wherein the person who has sold the land i.e., the grantee is not alive, while disposing of such lands again by the Government, preference shall be given to the heirs of such persons. This, the Trial Court holds as - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 intention of the legislature to conclude that the grant is made in favor of the family and not to the person individually. There is nothing on record to indicate that proceedings initiated to the effect stated supra. In the absence of any pleadings the Court cannot subscribe its own interpretation to the provisions of the Act. 36. The Trial Court has failed to consider that in view of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, the party who approaches the Court for specific and particular relief be granted in his favor, has to prove his case on his own and cannot take the disadvantages or lacuna or weakness of the opponent to prove his case. He has to discharge the burden casted upon him. The plaintiffs though pleaded that the lands were granted in favor of the entire family, but failed to produce the Grant Order in order to ascertain, in what capacity the grant was made in favor of the person applied, whether it is an individual grant or otherwise. No issues framed on the findings given by the Trial Court on application of Provisions of Act of 1961. In the absence of - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 specific issue, the Court solely on its own accord, traveling beyond the pleadings and evidence cannot record a finding on the basis of assumption and presumptions, which is impermissible in law. In the absence of foundational facts and evidence to that effect, the interpretation of intention as stated by the Trial Court perhaps in all probabilities does not fits in. 37. The Trial Court in the teeth of admission by PW.1 in her cross-examination that, she is not aware in what capacity the land was granted as well as admission that the defendant Nos.4 and 6 are in possession of the property and that the properties were sold by Huchaiah in favor of defendant No.4. The Trial Court in the absence of specific pleadings, only on the application of provisions of the Act of 1961 and on the contents of RTC, wherein it is stated that MR.No.19/2003-04 effected in favor of defendant No.4 on the basis of Sale Deed dated 16.01.2004, has held that there is no sale in favor of defendant No.4 and possession of the property has not been delivered in his favor under Ex.P1 - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 Sale Deed. It is nobody's case before the Trial Court that there is a sale deed dated 16.01.2004. The Trial Court even gone to the extent of saying that, defendant No.4 has not explained the circumstances under which he has got executed sale deed on 16.01.2004 by Huchaiah, when admittedly Huchaiah died on 19.09.2001. There are no pleadings forthcoming in the plaint, written statement or in the evidence, which gives material to the Trial Court to form such an opinion and finding. In these circumstances, the said reasoning and finding which are beyond the pleadings and evidence are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 38. Further the Trial Court has failed to consider the important aspect of the matter that though defendant Nos.1 to 3 being Wife, Daughter and son of deceased Huchaiah were signatories to the sale deed executed by Huchaiah and though there is a contention taken by plaintiffs that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were made to subscribe their signatures /thumb impression to the sale deed without allowing them to go through the contents of the sale deed - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 that, none of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in response to the notice issued, appeared and filed written statement in support of the said contention taken by the plaintiffs and led any evidence to substantiate the same. Even the plaintiffs have not summoned any of defendants 1 to 3 to substantiate the said contention. The Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 39. In paragraph 29 of its Judgment, the Trial Court has stated that though there is recital in the sale deed that lands are sold for the family necessities and the circumstances which made Huchaiah along with his other family members to execute the Sale Deed, has labeled it as a general contention which would be found in almost all Sale Deeds and comes to a conclusion that this cannot be taken to mean that the properties have been sold for family necessities. The Trial Court further failed to consider the admission by PW.1 i.e., plaintiff No.1 in her cross- examination that it is defendant No.3 who has provided her all the documents to file the suit and produced the same - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 during the course of the evidence. This clearly shows the conduct of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the collusiveness between them. However, the Trial Court at paragraph 30, surprisingly holds as under: "30. The defendants claimed that it is collusive suit. In support of the said contention, the defendants have drawn the admission given by PW.1 during her cross-examination wherein she admitted that all the documents to file suit has been provided to her by 3rd defendant. Merely on that basis it cannot be said that this a collusive suit because they are brother and sister. Further in view of my aforesaid discussed reasons this contention of defendants cannot be accepted." 40. The Trial Court holds that defendant No.4 has not pleaded that he is a bonafide purchaser and in the absence of such pleading, he cannot be termed as a bonafide purchaser and there is no transfer of property in his favor in view of violations of the provisions of Act of 1961. It is again said that there is no pleading to that effect to support the reasons of the Trial Court. Defendant No.4 specifically contented that the properties were granted in favour of - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 Huchaiah since he was holding Village Office. Immediately after coming into force of the Act of 1961, the properties granted were in his individual capacity and they become his absolute property. In the absence of any pleading and evidence to the effect that the office held by Huchaiah was a hereditary office succeeded by him through his ancestor, the reasoning and finding that grant was for the benefit of family, given by the Trial Court are misplaced and cannot gain strength in the eye of law. All other issues which were answered against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs are based on the answer to Issue Nos.1 to 6. 41. We have already reasoned that the reasoning and the finding of the Trial Court to hold that the property granted were held by the family and it is for the benefit of the family is misplaced and without support of any pleadings and evidence to that effect. All other findings on other issues required to be answered against the plaintiffs and other defendants who are the family members of the plaintiffs. However, in view of restriction of the claim in this appeal - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 only with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, we refrain ourselves from answering the said Issues against the plaintiffs. 42. The Trial Court has further failed to consider the conduct of the plaintiff that initially they have filed the suit only with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties leaving all the other properties and after defendant Nos.4 and 6 have taken a specific contention that there are other properties even disclosing the survey numbers in their written statement, filed application for amendment and added other properties. This goes against the plaintiffs. A person, who approaches the Court with soiled hands, cannot be lent a helping hand. The conduct of the plaintiffs disentitles them from any relief with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. In view of our reasons supra, we hold that the Trial Court committed a serious error in holding that the properties were granted for the benefit of entire family and not in the individual capacity of Huchaiah. In that view of the matter, the findings of the - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 Trial Court against defendant Nos.4 and 6 are required to be answered in their favour, modifying the judgment to that effect. Since there is no claim by any other person in respect of other properties, the plaintiffs and other defendants who are the family members and children of Huchaiah naturally succeed to the properties in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act in the absence of any testament to that effect by Huchaiah. To this limited extent, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the Judgment of the Trial Court with respect to Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties which were parted by deceased Huchaiah under registered Sale Deed dated 11.05.2001. 43. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, setting aside the findings recorded against defendant Nos.4 and 6 (defendant No.6 because he is claiming right under defendant No.4 with respect to Item No.2 of the suit schedule property) and answer Issue framed to that effect in favor of defendant Nos.4 and 6. The Judgment of the Trial Court in respect of other items i.e., Item Nos.3 to 8 are - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15159-DB RFA No. 135 of 2017 unaltered. Given the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. 44. The Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22