- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1356 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATAPPA DEAD BY LR S SRI V SREENIVASAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT C.S.PURA VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK - 572213 2. SRI V KRISHNA SHETTY, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT C.S.PURA VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK - 572213 3. SRI V RAVIKUMAR, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT C.S.PURA VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK – 572213 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 AND: SMT. HUCHAMMA D/O LATE NINGESH, AGED MAJOR, R/O BYRAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, HORAKERE MAJARE, C.S PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 213 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B ., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 12.6.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.72/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 1.9.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.66/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE 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 Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 12.06.2014 passed in R.A. No. 72 of 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi. 2. For Convenience the parties are referred to, as per their rankings before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 were the appellants and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The original plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking the relief of Declaration and a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father Venkatappa was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Grant made by the Government under Darkasth dated 26.07.1970. Thereafter he came in the possession of the suit property. It is contended that originally the suit property was a Gomala Land measuring 18 acres and 15 guntas out of which 3 acres was granted to the plaintiffs in 1970. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are the owners of the adjacent land in Sy No. 48 on the southern side and Defendant No. 4 is the owner of neighbouring land on the northern side. The Defendants having no manner of right, interest or - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 title over the suit schedule property tried to encroach upon the property and dispossess the plaintiff by denying their title over the same. Hence, the cause of action arose for the Plaintiffs to file a suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendants No. 1 and 4 were placed ex-parte, since they remained unrepresented despite the service of a notice. Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement and Defendant No. 3 adopted a written statement filed by Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit property was granted to her father Ningaiah through the grant certificate dated 20.01.1978 by the Tahasildar, Gubbi and since the date of grant her father was in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is contended that after the death of her father, she came in possession and enjoyment over the suit property by a Will dated 03.06.1988 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 executed by her father and subsequently the revenue records stood in her name. It is contended that she is paying tax to the government and raised trees over the property. It is contended that the plaintiffs and their father Venkatappa, having no right, title or possession over the property attempted to interfere with her possession and she was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.87 of 2000 seeking the relief of Declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending. Hence, on these ground, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. The Trial court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following the issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendants? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the suit ? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 4) What order or decree ? 7. The Plaintiffs to prove their case, examined 2 witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and 25 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to EX.P25. Conversely, the defendants in support of their defense, examined Defendant No. 2 as DW1 and marked 17 documents as Ex. D1 to Ex. D17. 8. The trial court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing on both the sides and after appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No. 4 as per the final order. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 01.09.2008. The Plaintiff was declared as the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the suit property. The Defendants, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 the Trial Court, preferred an appeal on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi in R.A.No. 72 of 2008. 9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1)Whether the impugned Judgment is perverse, capricious and against to the law, facts and probabilities of the case and to the principles of natural justice? 2)Whether the impugned Judgment requires interference at the hands of this court? 3)What order? 10. The first appellate court, after r-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered Point No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and Point No.3 as per the final order. The Appeal was allowed vide Judgment dated 12.06.2014. The judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.66 of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 2000 was set aside and consequently, the suit of the Plaintiffs was dismissed. 11. The Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in R.A.No.72 of 2008, have filed this Regular Second Appeal. 12. This court admitted the appeal on 11.01.2017 to consider the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the first appellate court has committed any serious legal error in dismissing the suit, by allowing the appeal without there being participation of the other defendants, against whom the decree was passed by the trial court? ii. Whether the first appellate court has committed any serious legal error in not taking into consideration the revenue records and the orders passed by the Revenue Officers, while reversing the judgment of the trial court? iii. Whether the first appellate court has committed any serious legal error in giving - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 priority to the oral evidence as against the documentary evidence produced by the parties to the suit? 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. 14. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that the first appellate court has passed the impugned judgment without properly re-appreciating the entire evidence on record. He submits that the first appellate court has reversed the judgment passed by the trial court even against the non participation of the other defendants. He submits that the revenue records pertaining to the suit property stands in the name of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He submits that the first appellate court did not take into account the revenue records while passing the impugned judgment and committed an error in passing the same. The impugned judgment passed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 by the first appellate court is arbitrary and erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the Defendants submits that the suit for declaration of title based on revenue records is not maintainable. He submits that the plaintiffs have produced no title deed in support of their claim. The first appellate court, after adequately considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and the same is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 16. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.1: 17. The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants for a Declaration of title and a permanent injunction. The Trial court after hearing the parties and on - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The Defendant No. 2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court, preferred an appeal. The first appellate court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after re appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 18. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the first appellate court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment in the non participation of the other defendants i.e., only Defendant No. 2 preferred the first appeal. To address this issue, it is necessary to examine Order 41 Rule 4 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 ( for short ‘CPC”) which reads as follows: Rule 4. One of several plaintiffs or defendants may obtain reversal of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all. -Where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may reverse or van the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be. 19. A reading of Rule 4 of Order 41 of the CPC provide that any one of the party can challenge the decree on common grounds to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants. Merely because only Defendant No. 2 had appealed and not the other defendants, the Court is not powerless. The Court in such an appeal may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the parties who are in the same interest as the plaintiffs or defendants. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and others - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 Vs. Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) through legal representatives and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 1754. 20. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandramohan Patil (supra) any one of the parties can maintain an appeal as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 of CPC. The first appellate court considering the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 of the CPC has rightly passed the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law No.1 in the negative. Reg. Substantial Question of laws No. 2 and 3: 21. These Substantial questions of law are interlinked with each other and are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 22. The plaintiffs to prove their case, the power of attorney holder of the original plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he reiterated the paint averments in the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 examination and produced the documents marked as Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 25. Ex P 1 is the special power of Attorney, EX P. 2 is the mutation Register extract, Ex. P 3 to Ex. P8 are the RTC extracts pertaining to the suit property, Ex. P. 9 to P12 are the tax paid receipts , Ex. P 13 is the sketch, Ex P 14 is the boundary certificate, Ex. P 15 is the patta receipt book, Ex. P 16 is an endorsement, Ex. P 17 to 19 are the RTC extracts, Ex. P 20 is an endorsement, Ex 21 and 22 are notices, Ex. P 23 is the index of land, Ex P 24 is the notice and Ex P 25 is the encumbrance certificate. During the course of cross examination of PW1, he admits the institution of suit in OS 87 of 2000 against them. Also states that he has produced no sketch issued by the survey authority regarding the suit property. 23. One Ramalingayya was examined as PW2, who deposed that the original plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since from the date of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 grant and after the death of the original plaintiff his children are in possession of the suit property. 24. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 examined herself as DW1 and reiterated the written statement averments in the examination in chief and produced the documents marked as Ex. D1 to Ex. D 17. During the course of cross examination of DW2, it was suggested that Defendant No.2 attempted to encroach upon the suit property, the said suggestion was denied by DW2. 25. From the perusal of entire evidence on record it is evident that the plaintiff has not examined any survey authorities to substantiate his case and Ex P 16 is the endorsement given by the Tahsildar which speaks that there is no entry in the name of Venkatappa regarding suit property. This creates doubt about the grant made in the name of original plaintiff i.e., Venkatappa. However, it is pertinent to note that the suit is one for declaration of title and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 Admittedly, the Plaintiff has not produced any title deed to establish his title over the suit schedule property. 26. It is settled law that a suit for declaration of title based on revenue records is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar in Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2011, disposed of , on 20.11.2023 held as follows: 11. It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title. 12. This Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors. held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question. (1996) 6 SCC 223 13. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors.3 wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. 14. In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.4, this Court after - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows: “6. ***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” 15. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.5 wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary. 16- 26. XXXX 27. In the light of the discussions made above, we hold that the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit by placing on a higher probative pedestal the revenue entries. In our considered opinion, the first appellate court rightly overturned the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. The Commissioner’s order was correctly interpreted to determine as to in whom occupancy rights vested in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property. 27. The first appellate court considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Kishore Kumar (Supra) has rightly passed the impugned - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1799 RSA No. 1356 of 2014 judgment. The Impugned judgment passed by the first appellate court is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. The first appellate court was justified in passing the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion I answer Substantial questions of law 2 and 3 in the negative. 28. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. iv. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Pending IA(s), if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS (Online)