- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2014 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT GULAB D/O GHOUSE SAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O CHELUR GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VARAPRASAD K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI C H DODDAIAH S/O LATE HONNADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O CHELUR GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G S PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 7.8.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 20.1.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.289/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) GUBBI. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 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 The appellant filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in RA No. 14 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gubbi (‘First Appellate Court’ for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court1. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was granted in 1 OS No.289/1997 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gubbi. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 favour of the brother of the plaintiff by name Krishnappa by Mandal Panchayath, Chelur. The plaintiff and his brother Krishnappa had divided their ancestral properties and joint family properties including the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff in the partition effected between him and his sibling. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. On 01.06.1993, the defendant approached the plaintiff for letting out the suit schedule property on monthly rent and the plaintiff agreed to let out the schedule property to the defendant on a monthly rent at the rate of ₹50/- and the same was occupied by the defendant on 01.06.1993. The defendant had failed to pay the rent from 01.06.1993 to 31.07.1997. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant denied to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff issued a legal notice terminating the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 tenancy of the suit schedule property. The defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor handed over the possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contented that, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 35 years and it is contented that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that there exists any relationship as a tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 4. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and they were re-casted as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is due to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiff as claimed in the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit? 4. What Order or Decree? 5. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The defendant examined herself as DW1, examined one witness as DW2 and marked 26 documents as Exs.D1 to D26. 6. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No. 289 of 1997, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No. 14 of 2010. 8. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the impugned Judgment and Decree requires interference at the hands of this court ? 2. What order ? 9. 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. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of judgment, and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 also held that the plaintiff is entitled for the arrears of rent from the defendant amounting to ₹2,550/- upto 30.09.1997 and further, arrears of rent at the rate of ₹50/- per month from the date of the suit till realisation. 10. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in RA No. 14 of 2010, preferred this regular second appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the defendant and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that, the First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court only on the ground that the defendant has admitted the title of the plaintiff, and also the relationship as a landlord and tenant. He submits that, the defendant has not admitted the title of the plaintiff and also relationship as a landlord and tenant in the written statement. The First Appellate Court has also reversed the judgment on the ground that the defendant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 has not produced any record to establish her title over the suit schedule property. He submits that, the plaintiff has approached the Court seeking a relief of declaration of title, possession etc. He submits that, the plaintiff must establish his case independently and cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant. To buttress this argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others2. He submits that, the First Appellate Court, without considering the said aspect, has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary and erroneous. 12.1. He further submits that, the plaintiff, except producing the revenue records, has not produced the title deeds to establish that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court, placing 2 (2014) 2 SCC 269 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 reliance on the demand register extract, has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the property based on the demand register. He also submits that, a suit for declaration cannot be decreed based on the revenue records. To buttress this argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar3. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the suit schedule property was granted in favour of plaintiff’s brother and a partition was effected between the plaintiff and his brother regarding the ancestral and joint family properties, and in the said partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a partition effected between him and his brother. He submits that, to establish the ownership, the plaintiff has produced the 3 (2024) 13 SCC 553 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 demand register extract. He also submits that, the defendant has not produced any records to demonstrate that the defendant is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. He submits that, the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper, and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. This Court admitted the appeal on 23.02.2017 to consider the following substantial question of law: “When the plaintiff failed to prove his contention that suit property was gifted in favour of his brother, later under the oral partition it was allotted to the share of the plaintiff, whether the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in allowing R.A.No.14/2010 filed by the plaintiff and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, consequently decreeing the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 of the plaintiff declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit property and directing the defendant to deliver the possession of suit property to the plaintiff is sustainable in law?” Reg. Substantial Question of Law: 16. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of his brother i.e., Krishnappa and a partition was effected between the plaintiff and Krishnappa regarding the ancestral and joint family properties. In the said oral partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff. The defendant approached the plaintiff to let out the said property on a monthly rent of ₹50/- per month. The plaintiff agreed to let out the said property on a monthly rent of ₹50/- to the defendant. There exists a relationship as a landlord, and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is also contended that, the plaintiff had issued a termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating the tenancy - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 over the suit schedule property and also claimed arrears of rent. Despite service of the termination notice, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit schedule premises and replied to the legal notice. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, has examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the following documents: * Ex.P1 is the demand register extract which discloses that the name of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is paying the taxes of the suit schedule property; * Ex.P2 is the termination notice issued by the plaintiff. * Ex.P3 is the postal acknowledgment card. * Exs.P4 to P9 are the tax paid receipts which disclose that the plaintiff had paid the property tax regarding the suit schedule property. During the cross-examination of PW1, it was suggested that the plaintiff is not the owner and there exists no - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 relationship as a landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant; the said suggestion was denied by PW1. 17. In rebuttal, the defendant examined herself as DW1 and she reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and to rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant produced the documents Exs.D1 to D26. 18. From the perusal of the documents produced by the defendant, it clearly discloses that the name of the plaintiff was deleted from the Panchayat records and the name of the defendant was entered in the Panchayat records. 19. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property was granted in favour of his brother Krishnappa and subsequently, he had acquired the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 property under the partition effected between him and his sibling i.e., his brother. To prove that the property was granted in favour of Krishnappa, the plaintiff has not produced the grant certificate and further, the plaintiff has also not examined any witnesses to establish that a partition was effected between him and his sibling, and in the said partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff. The plaintiff, except pleading that there exists a relationship as a landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, has not produced any documents to establish the jural relationship as a landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Further, no records have been produced to show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Except producing the demand register extract, the plaintiff has not produced any other title deeds. 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra), in paragraph No.19, held as follows: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 “19. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against (sic them), in the absence of establishment of the plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited.” (Emphasis supplied) Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not produced any title deeds to establish that he had acquired a title by virtue of alleged grant made in favour of one Krishnappa and he had acquired the property in the alleged partition effected between him and his brother Krishnappa. 21. The First Appellate Court has recorded a finding in paragraph No.30 of the judgment that the defendant has not produced any grant certificate made in favour of the defendant and also nothing prevented the defendants - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 from producing Hakku Patra before the Court and mere passing of a resolution of grant regarding the suit property in favour of defendant as per Ex.D8 is not sufficient to believe the defendant’s lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has failed to consider the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra). The said finding recorded by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.30 of the judgment is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case. 22. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. As observed above, the plaintiff has failed to establish that there exists a jural relationship as a landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title based on the demand register extract. It is settled law that, a suit for declaration of title based on revenue records in the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 absence of title deeds is not maintainable. The Court cannot declare the title in the absence of title deed based on the revenue records. The said view has been supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Kishore Kumar (supra). 23. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the records. The First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court based on the weakness of the defendant, as the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit schedule property and also regarding the relationship as a landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Trial Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the title over the suit schedule property and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as a landlord and tenant, and has rightly dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court without properly - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 re-appreciating the entire evidence on record. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous. Hence, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 24. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative. 25. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed IA No.1/2025 for the production of additional documentary evidence before this Court. In support of the application, the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that, during the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the entries made in the name of the defendant, and produced a copy of the appeal memo and a notice. Hence, prays to allow the application. 26. Though the suit was filed in 1997, as of the date of filing the suit, the entries were standing in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff has not taken any - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 steps to challenge the entries in the name of the defendant till 2024-25. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. It is for the plaintiff to establish that how the plaintiff had acquired the title over the suit schedule property. As observed in the judgment passed by this Court, the plaintiff has failed to establish the title over the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff has filed an application for the production of additional documents only with an intention to fill up a lacuna. 27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Kamalam (Dead) and Another Vs. Ayyasamy and Another4 held that, filing an application for the production of additional evidence is not a matter of right. Further, the plaintiff has not explained why the plaintiff has not filed the said appeal during the pendency and after the disposal of suit. The plaintiff has filed the appeal only during the pendency of this second appeal, after a lapse of more than 4 (2001) 7 SCC 503 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10089 RSA No. 1343 of 2014 10 years from the year of filing this appeal. The plaintiff has failed to fulfill the ingredients and requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain IA No.1/2025. 28. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The regular second appeal is allowed; ii. The judgment and decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in RA No. 14 of 2010 by the First Appellate Court is hereby set aside; iii. The judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010 passed in OS No. 289 of 1997 by the Trial Court is hereby restored; iv. IA No.1/2025 is rejected; v. No order as to the costs; vi. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10