- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 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. 191 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1(a) M.C. CHANNABASAVAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS M.C. SHASHIDAR, AGED BOUT 42 YEARS, S/O M.C. CHENNABASAVAIAH, 1(b) SAVITHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O M.C. CHENNABASAVAIAH, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MYSURAPPANAPALYA, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) SHIVANNA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O SHIVANNA, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 RESIDING AT MYSURAPPANAPALYA, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214. 1(b) SMT. PREMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O KUMARAIAH, D/O SHIVANNA, RESIDING AT HARACHANAHALLI, THIMLAPURA POST, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 217. 2. M.S. VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA, R/O MYSURAPPANAPALYA, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY P'PSD R1(a)- SERVED; V/O.DTD.18.02.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT IN R/O R1(b); V/O.DTD.12/02/2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 5.12.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10006/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 11.1.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.12/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ITINERATE COURT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2013 passed in R.A. No.10006 of 2013 by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, and the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2013 passed in O.S. No.12 of 2008 by the learned Itinerate Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 the case of the plaintiffs that Nanjamma was the original propositus and that Nanjamma had three sons, namely Marulappa, Chikkanna and Nanjaiah. They got divided all the family properties under an oral partition and since from the date of oral partition, the brothers are enjoying their respective properties. 5. Plaintiff No.1 is the son of Nanjaiah and plaintiff No.2 is the grandson of Nanjaiah. The suit schedule properties were assigned to plaintiff No.1 and got entered the revenue entries in his name, and enjoying the same by paying the property tax. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties, and denied the title of the plaintiffs’ ownership of the suit schedule properties and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of title - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that a partition was effected between the three children of Nanjamma and in the said partition, Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties to the extent of 2 acres was allotted to the share of defendant and the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs are not the absolute owners of the entire Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit insofar as Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties is concerned. 7. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 “1. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÉAzÀÄ oÀgÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Ár¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 2. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°è EzÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 3. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀPÉÌ CqÀZÀuÉ GAlĪÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÀAvÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 4. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ F zÁªÁ ºÀÆqÀ®Ä ªÁådå PÁgÀt GAmÁV®èªÉAvÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÄÃ? 5. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ F zÁªÁzÀ°è ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw¹®èªÉA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÄÃ? 6. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ F zÁªÁzÀ°è PÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 7. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÀ rQæ?”À 8. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW-1, and marked seven documents as Exs.P1 to P7. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 9. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1, however, no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant. 10. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs, vide judgment dated 11.01.2013 and declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and the defendant was restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 11. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.12 of 2008 preferred an Appeal in R.A. No.10006 of 2013 on the file of the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 12. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel to the parties, framed the following points for its consideration. “1) Whether the appellant proves that learned Trial Judge erred in holding that plaintiffs have proved their absolute ownership and possession over the entire suit schedule properties including 2 acres in item No.4 of the suit schedule properties and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is erroneous? 2. Whether the appellant be permitted to adduce additional evidence? 3. What Order or Decree?” 13. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 confirmed the judgment decree passed in O.S. No.12 of 2008 vide its judgment dated 05.12.2013. 14. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, has filed this Regular Second Appeal. 15. A notice was issued to the plaintiffs in this appeal. Despite the service of notice, the plaintiffs have remained unrepresented. 16. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. 17. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title, and permanent injunction. He submits that the defendant has no grievance regarding the decree passed in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 is concerned. He submits that there was a partition among the children of Nanjamma and in the said partition, a portion of land in suit Item No 4 has fallen to the share of the defendant i.e., to the extent of 2 acres. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 18. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Item No.4 i.e., Survey No.228/8 to the extent of 2 acres. The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over an extent of 2 acres of item No.4 of the suit properties. He submits that, although the defendant has produced a copy of the memorandum of partition effected between the children of Nanjamma before the First Appellate Court by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the First Appellate Court rejected the said application on the ground that the defendant has not pleaded in the written statement regarding the date, and place of the alleged partition. 19. He submits that the plaintiffs are the signatories to the memorandum of partition. He also submits that mere suit for declaration of title based on the revenue records is not maintainable in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case P.Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar reported - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 in (2024) 13 SCC 553. Hence, on these grounds, he pays to allow the appeal. 20. This Court, vide order dated 29.07.2025 framed the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justifying in holding that the plaintiffs/respondents were allotted entire 3 acre 33 guntas in item No.4 property without there being any title deed relating to entire 3 acre 33 guntas in survey No.228/8? 2) Whether the appellant establishes that 2 acres of land in survey No.228/8 is allotted to the share of the appellant? 3) Whether First Appellant Court is justified in rejecting the application for production of additional documents? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 Reg. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3: 21. These substantial questions of law are interlinked with each other and hence, they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid repetition of facts. 22. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that there was a partition among the children of Nanjamma and the suit schedule properties have fallen to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs became the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of a partition effected between the children of Nanjamma. 23. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1. He reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief and to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have produced 7 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P7. 24. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and he has reiterated the written statement - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 averments in the examination-in-chief and contended that in the partition, portion of the suit Item No.4 fell to the share of the defendant i.e., to the extent of 02 acres, out of 03 acres 32 guntas. The name of the defendant is entered in the revenue records based on the oral partition. 25. Although the plaintiffs have filed this suit based on the partition effected between the children of Nanjamma, to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have not produced any records to establish that the entire extent of land in Item No.4, i.e., Survey No.228/8 measuring 03 acres 32 guntas fell to the share of the plaintiffs. 26. However, on perusal of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it is apparent that both the Courts below have recorded that the defendant has failed to produce any records to demonstrate that Item No.4 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 to the extent of 02 acres fell to the share of the defendant. 27. It is pertinent to note here that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and as such, the plaintiffs must establish their case independently, and cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant. 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269, has held that the plaintiff, in a suit for declaration of title and possession, could succeed only on the strength of his own title, and that could be done only by producing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on him, irrespective of the question whether defendant has proved his case or not. Even if the title set up by the defendant is found against, in the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited. 29. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiffs have approached the Court and sought for a relief of declaration of title. The plaintiffs have not produced any records to show that the entire extent of land in Item No.4 of the suit properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs. 30. Thus, the said aspect was not properly considered by both the Courts below, and committed an error in declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the entire extent of Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties. 31. The defendant has contended that extent of 02 acres in Survey No.228/8 fell to the share of the defendant. Even if the defendant has failed to prove that the said extent of 2 acres fell to the share of the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 plaintiffs, it is for the plaintiffs to establish the said aspect. 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Kishore Kumar (supra) has held that a suit for declaration of title based on revenue records is not maintainable. In the instant case, the findings recorded by both the Courts below is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Kishore Kumar (supra). 33. Both the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs were allotted entire 03 acres 32 guntas in Item No.4 of the suit properties without there being any title deed relating to the entire 03 acres 32 guntas in Survey No.228/8. 34. The defendant has made an attempt to produce the partition deed before the First Appellate Court by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the First Appellate - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 Court rejected the application on the ground that the defendant has not pleaded in the written statement regarding the date and place of alleged partition. 35. The First Appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the application for production of additional documents. The First Appellate Court could have allowed the application for production of additional evidence. On the contrary, it rejected the application. However, even if the said document is placed on record by the defendant, it would not have changed the well-established principle of law that a suit for declaration of title based on revenue records is not maintainable. 36. Both the Courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit insofar as Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties is concerned. 37. In view of the above discussion, I answer Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 to 3 in the negative. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10112 RSA No. 191 of 2014 38. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgments and decrees, passed by both the Courts below, insofar as item No.4, are hereby set aside. (iii) The suit of the plaintiffs regarding Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties is dismissed. (iv) Rest of the judgment passed by the Trial Court is maintained. (v) In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5