- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.53 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: NINGEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT SHAMBOONAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI N.SHANTKUMAR FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H B, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. S C DODDACHANNEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. S C JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. S C NINGEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. S C RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. JAYAMMA W/O ERANNA GOWDA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 6. VIJAYA W/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF SHAMBOONAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571401 7. SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT MOSARAHALLI BASANDU POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-582 121 8. SMT SUMITHRA W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT B HOSUR VILLAGE KEREGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 401 9. MARILINGEGOWDA S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 9(A) MAHALINGEGOWDA S/O LATE MARILINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT PEEGALLI VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401 10. P M BHAVANI @ BINDHU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 RESPONDENT NO.9 AND 10 ARE RESIDING AT PEEHALLI VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401 11. S J CHANNEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 12. S J NINGEGOWDA LATE JAVEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 13. S J LAKSHMI W/O LATE S K MANCHEGOWDA D/O LATE JAVEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 14. S J JAVEREGOWDA S/O LATE JAVEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 15. S J CHIKKACHENNEGOWDA LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.11 TO 15 ARE R/AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 401 16. S J SUDHA W/O B P SOMASHEKARA D/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT DODDABANASAWADI VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 401 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 17. THAYAMMA W/O SINGRIGOWDA D/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MODDLAKOPPAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TQ-571 401 18. MARILINGAMMA W/O BOREGOWDA D/O LATE S C KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TQ.-571 401 19. VASANTHKUMAR S/O LATE S C KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MOODLAKOPPAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TQ.-571 401 20. EREGOWDA S/O SHIVAYOGI JAVEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 21. CHANNEGOWDA S/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS (THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.21 HEREIN IS CHENNEGOWDA S/O EREGOWDA NOT CHAMMEGOWDA S/O EREGOWDA THERE IS A MISTAKE IN R.A.68/2012 BUT CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE O.S.294/2004) 22. RAMESH - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 S/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.20 AND 21 ARE RESIDING AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK – 571 401 23. SAROJAMMA W/O BOREGOWDA D/O LATE S C KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TQ.- 571 401 24. PADMAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA D/O LATE S C KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT BUNDAREKOPPALU VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 401 25. SAVITHA W/O S C MACHEGOWDA D/O S C KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 401 26. YASHODA W/O RAVI D/O S C KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK-571 401 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 27. NINGAMMA D/O LATE NINGAIAH W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MARANAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, SHIVALLI POST MANDYA TALUK-571 401 28. KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 29. PUTTEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 30. SHIVARAMU S/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 31. SHANKAREGOWDA S/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.28 TO 31 ARE RESIDING AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK- 571 401 32. SANNAMMA D/O LATE NINGAIAH W/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KODAGANAHALLI VILLAGE SUNTATHONNUR POST MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK-571 401 ORIGINAL DEFENDANT NO.1, 3 AND 3(E) WERE DIED DURING PENDENCY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN O.S.NO.294/2004 AND - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 RESPONDENT NO.9, 10 AND 22 WERE DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE REGULAR APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE COURT IN THIS REGARD ABOVE SAID PARTIES ARE MADE PARTY BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R8, R9(A), R10, R12 TO R16, R20 TO R26, R29, R31, R32 ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2023, NOTICE AGAINST R11, R27, R28, R30 HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.08.2023, APPEAL AGAINST R17, R18, R23 IS DISMISSED; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025, NOTICE TO R19(A TO C) IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.06.2026, I.A.1/23 FOR BRINGING LR’s OF DECEASED R19 ON RECORD STANDS DISMISSED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.68/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.294/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri N. Shantkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri H.B. Chandrashekar learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Plaintiff's second appeal, challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.294/2004, confirmed in R.A.No.68/2012. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present second appeal are as under: 3.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) contending that suit property is the ancestral property which has fallen to the share of the plaintiff at a partition and thereafter his name got mutated in the revenue entries and therefore he is the lawful owner of the suit property: Property situated in Shambunahalli Village, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk, bearing Sy.No.61/2, measuring in total 15 (wrongly mentioned in the RTC as Sy. No.61/2(a) measuring 3 gts.61/2(a)-P3 measuring 1 gts. 61/2p2 measuring 6 gts. 61/2a-Pl measuring 2 gts., and Sy. No.61/2 ap2, measuring 3 gts., bounded - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 on East by: Nala, West by: Javaregowda S/o Ningegowda, North by Road, and South by Yajaman Channegowda and then remaining Property in the suit Sy.No. allotted to Ningaraju measuring 10 gts. 3.2. In this regard, plaintiff has placed on record documents vide Ex.P1 which is the endorsement issued by the concerned authority on 05.05.2001 and Ex.P2 is the endorsement issued on 01.04.2002; Ex.P3 is the sketch in respect of Sy.No.61/2b2. Encumbrance certificate for the period of 01.04.1950 to 31.03.1963 is marked as Ex.P4. Copies of the sale deeds executed in favour of Ningaiah by Channegowda is marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. 3.3. From the above documents plaintiff wanted to establish that he is the owner of the property and defendants without there being any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property started interfering with the suit property and therefore suit for declaration and injunction is filed. 4. In pursuance to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and denied the title of the plaintiff and placed on record documentary evidence to show that they are in possession of the suit property by placing the revenue - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 entries for a sufficiently longer period and also the sale deed which is marked at Ex.D3 which has been executed in favour of defendant No.1 on 20.11.1972 and also revenue entries thereafter. 5. 5. Learned Trial Judge based on the rival contentions raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff failed to prove the title to the suit property as there was no documentary evidence that is placed on record to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.68/2012. 7. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff by considered judgment dated 30.07.2018. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court on the following substantial questions of law: a) When at an undisputed point of time the existence of revenue records were made in the name of ancestors - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 of the appellant with regard to the suit property which were continuous and uninterrupted, whether courts below are right in disbelieving the same holding that revenue records are not title deeds ? b) In view of the nature of the defense setup by the respondent claiming rival tittle to the suit property without framing any issue, in the absence of any issues framed whether the courts below are correct in declaring the title of the respondents/defendants? c) When the plaintiff has disputed the documents exhibited by Defendants in 'D' serious on the ground that the said documents are not relevant in order to disprove the case of the plaintiff/appellant, whether the courts below are correct in simply accepting the documents produced and exhibited by the defendants without its proof? d) When a person approaches the court for the relief of declaration in respect of landed properties against a rival party, if the rival party put forth a defense setting up his claim over the same property, under the said circumstances whether the court is right in putting burden of proof against the plaintiff in respect of the defense setup by the his rival party ? if the same is held to be correct does it not go against the section 101 of Indian Evidence Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 e) Whether the courts below are correct in ignoring the admissions given by the DWs regarding the plaintiff's right and possession and misinterpreting the oral testimony of the witnesses and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff ? f) In the absence of any transfer of right in respect of the suit property by the appellant or by his predecessors in tittle, whether the courts below are right in holding that the claim setup by the defendants stands proved? g) In view of non-compliance of the Mandatory provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court could be held correct?” 9. Sri Shantakumar, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and failed to note that there is a long standing revenue entries in the name of the plaintiff and probative value of endorsement marked at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are not taken into consideration in right perspective and only on the basis of the sale deed placed by the defendant vide Ex.D.3, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed which has resulted in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 miscarriage of justice and thus sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 10. Respondent served and unrepresented. 11. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record to substantiate that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property as rightly observed by both the Courts, there is no documentary evidence placed on record. 13. Before the First Appellate Court, no doubt there was an attempt made by the plaintiff to place additional evidence on record. 14. However, the First Appellate Court has recorded cogent reasons for not accepting the additional evidence on record. 15. Suit is one for declaration. In the absence of documentary evidence, tracing the title to the suit property, dismissal of the suit by both the Courts is just and proper. 16. Thus, on factual aspects when both the Courts have recorded a categorical finding that plaintiff failed to make out a - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33836 RSA No. 53 of 2020 legal right in the aspect of the suit property, having regard to the scope of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 17. Consequently, the following: ORDER (i) Admission is declined. (ii) Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53