- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. G.C ANJINEYA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT GIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE KESHAVARA POST CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562102 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADISH J.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT VEENA W/O LATE G N KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SRI G K LALITH KUMAR S/O LATE G N KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. SRI G K SUMANTH S/O LATE G N KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT GIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 102 Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 4. SRI AMARENDRA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT GIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 102 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.136/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.72/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was the plaintiff in OS No.72/2013, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur, in RA.No.136/2018 dated 01.12.2020, dismissing the appeal and confirming the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 judgment and decree dated 19.07.2018 in O.S.No.72/2013 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkaballapur. 3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of brevity. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that old Survey No.50 was rephoded and assigned a new survey No.362/1. It originally belonged to one Chikkanna, who is the father of the plaintiff, and after the death of Chikkanna, the plaintiff and his brother G.C.Ranganna amicably partitioned the family properties and in that partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff and his brother by name G.C.Ranganna half share each. It is further contended that by virtue of the partition, the revenue entries were mutated. Plaintiff further pleaded - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 that his father, Chikkanna, executed a registered will in favour of his children. As per the will, the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property. He is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. But the revenue records continued in the joint name of him and his brother. 5. It is also pleaded that the brother of the plaintiff has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property, and there is no dispute between the brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has further stated that defendants who have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property started interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession under the guise of having obtained a sale deed and having mutated revenue documents on the basis of the sale deed and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, which led to the plaintiff filing the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 6. Upon issuance of the summons to the defendants, defendant No.1 did not appeared. He was placed ex parte. Defendant No.2 appeared and filed a written statement denying the contention of the plaint averments and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession in respect of suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference? 4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Sadarappa Narasappa and after his demise Chikkamrappa? 5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves the registered sale deed dated 04.01.1969 executed by the father of the 1st defendant? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 7. What order OR decree? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 Additional Issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? 8. In order to substantiate the issues and prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, got marked Ex.P1 to ExP.33 and one supporting witness as PW2, whereas the GPA holder of defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1, got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D19. 9. Upon considering the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, and the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the trial Court did not find favour with the contentions put forth by the plaintiff, negated the issues cast on the plaintiff, and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any good ground or produced any material to prove his contentions with regard to the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff approached the first appellate Court in RA No.136/2018. challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Upon summons being issued once again in the first appellate Court, the defendant No.1 again did not appear. He was placed exparte. Defendant No.2 appeared and contested the matter. The legal representatives of defendant No.1 were brought on record before the first appellate Court. Upon reconsideration of the matter and re-analysis of the matter once again by the first appellate Court and upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, the first appellate Court formulated the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out reasonable grounds to allow the appeal by setting-aside the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2018 passed in OS.No.72/2013 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chickballapur? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court calls for interference? 3. What order or decree? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 11. The first appellate Court had a re-look at the matter once again by reconsidering the materials on record both oral and documentary, and also the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants and, upon careful perusal of the records and the documents as well as the evidence placed on record, did not find favour with the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff who has approached the Court seeking relief of declaration and relief of permanent injunction, has not produced any material on record to show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. No documents, even otherwise, apart from the title deeds are placed on record to prove his ownership or possession of the suit schedule property and as to how the property was acquired and how survey No.50 came to be re-phoded to survey No.362/1. Apart from merely producing the survey sketch, the first appellate Court reiterating the judgment and decree of the trial Court, came to the conclusion that the burden was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 always on the plaintiff to prove that he was the owner of the old survey No.50, which was subsequently re- numbered as survey No. 362/1. 12. Under the circumstances, the entire onus and burden of proof was on the plaintiff to satisfy the Court by producing relevant materials before the trial Court or a catena of them before the first appellate Court. No such material is placed before the trial Court. So also, no effort was made before the first appellate Court if he was not in possession to make an application to establish his right over the suit schedule property. Having not placed such materials before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court to either prove ownership or possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have declined to accept the version of the plaintiff for want of materials. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiff is before this Court in second appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 13. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have committed a serious error, illegality and perversity in not considering the materials placed on record and passed an order that is opposed to the facts and probabilities of the case. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the trial Court has failed to frame proper issues for consideration, and when the trial Court has not come to the conclusion that the defendants are the owners or in possession, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, placed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. 14. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property, whereas it is stated that as on date of a cross examination the defendant was in possession of a portion of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 property, and this fact has been conveniently ignored by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that both the courts have overlooked the admission of DW1 during the course of cross-examination, which is contrary to the plaint, and the plaintiff has been clearly able to establish that he is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, which is conveniently ignored by both the Courts. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contends that the judgment rendered by both Courts are perverse and illegal and the same require to be set aside, and he has formulated substantial questions of law to be framed by this Court for further consideration in the matter. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the defendants, as this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions put forth by the appellant/plaintiff or grant any relief in his favour. Hence, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 notice to respondents/defendants is dispensed. Apparently, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, which was earlier survey No.50, a jodi land, and thereafter it was rephoded and assigned a new survey No.362/1. Such being the case, the onus is heavy and it is always on the plaintiff whenever a declaratory relief is sought for him to establish and prove before the Court by producing cogent documentary evidence, both oral and by way of documents. Firstly, to prove that the property which is sought to be declared to be owner, title deeds are to be produced. If no such title deeds are there, as to how the property vested with the plaintiff and as to how survey No.50, the original property number, came to be rephoded as new Survey No. 362/1. So material documents ought to have been placed by the plaintiff to primarily satisfy these basic requirements to establish his right over the suit schedule property. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 16. Admittedly, no documents are produced by the plaintiff with regard to survey No.50 being changed or rephoded to Survey No. 362/1. No doubt during the stage of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff admits to a document being placed of the fact that Survey No.50 was converted to Survey No. 362/1. But the same is not marked as an exhibit before the trial Court. If that be so, no effort was made by the plaintiff before the first appellate Court to make such a contention that there exists any such document or produce any such document and seek for permission of the Court to place such a document by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC. The same was not done before the first appellate Court. 17. The trial Court and the first appellate Court have come to a clear conclusion that the plaintiff is trying to prove his ownership and title over the suit schedule property, and also the possession over the suit schedule property. In fact, the trial Court and the first appellate - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 Court conclude that both plaintiff and the defendants have not proved their title or possession or interference by the defendants with the possession of the plaintiff. Apparently, it is seen that though the defendant No.2 took up a contention that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by way of a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1965, the said fact has also not been proved and established, and it is negated by the trial Court. However, the defendant No.2 has not taken up any challenge. Defendant No.2 has not challenged the said finding of the trial Court. The appeal is preferred by the plaintiff before the first appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed. 18. Having perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment rendered by both the courts, as it is the onus of the plaintiff to prove his case. Whereas Sections 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act 1872 clearly lay - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 out on whom the burden of proof lies. Section 102 and Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: "102. On whom burden of proof lies. –– The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 103. Burden of proof as to particular fact. – –The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person." 19. These being the facts and circumstances and the legal position, the plaintiff having failed to produce any material before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to frame substantial questions of law as urged in the appeal memo. Accordingly, I pass the following order: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22300 RSA No. 820 of 2022 ORDER The appeal is dismissed at the initial stage of admission itself. No substantial questions of law arise for framing in this appeal. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33