Karnataka High Court
Boramma vs Srinivasa on 9 January, 2009
Equivalent citations: 2009 (2) AIR KANT HCR 552, 2009 A I H C 1667, (2009) 2 KANT LJ 385, (2009) 3 ICC 697, (2009) 1 KCCR 670
Author: K.Ramanna
Bench: K.Ramanna
* :.,«.» ' _
IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT BA3§GA:x;~--L}§E} _
DATED mzs THE 9&1 DAY :3; JANU:-m$?,'1:'2éGé§ 4. _ "
Bmomti; 1' H V
THE HUMBLE MR,;m$'ri<i'E_V§{'*RAMA:%éi§»§._V.:.V
REGULAR SECOND usvcayf
BETWEEN:
Boramma
W/0 Marigowdra" V
Major, 11:) Khy'i:1;;;,%;¢g¢x;¢ _ vA
Mandya 'V A Awefiant
Adv--2
AND:
1 Sxiniirasa V '_ -.
j ' 'fife Sid'd§:gi)Wda'
" Maj-1)_r, r/ d'L*§:v.araj Mohalla
i-§f::211'1'"¥g::.17?gi3.Z, block No.9
' Siddamma
Wig Maflgowda
z Eiajér, r] 0 Khyranagasrc
Mandya Tq 35 Dist
Maxigowda
- dead by his LR3
Yogcsh
S] 0 Marigowda
that they are mat betmd by the deems in O,S;"N%:).
Hence {hey filed the suit seeking t2;:~'"§h'c~ :~»§cgnsai{i :§:_1_2§:is,:'~'
4. On appearance bcfon: =4::__<3bi;=.._:f_iA.'. deféfigiailts
fileci written statement had
filéd suit in {3.S.vI~§r)u.V158[Vi9:i9 E_§'-- Siiixnc was
Compremiscd and by the said
decrtxtg that "fi,1f$iv_.§ief§:fi§i§§fi%:: wedded with of
S€C{)}Z1d d»3fc:2§i§;33i::f:_ _go.§ and a son;
'sihat deserted first defmxclant
and 111132: -- ._s':1{:h she filed a suit in
maintsnance and creation 63
Chagrsgét and it délcrced by creating charge on the suit
" ,.-__subseq11r::1tly firs'-: defendant also filed
j; against sacond defendant for pafiiition and
sé;2a1"at(:~p£§sé.cssi0n 01' family properties; that the said suit
was éofiipromiscd and suit schedule properties and other
j*;vr§:;§3rti::s fall to the share of first defendant anfi her
' daughters towards satisfactiozx of maintenance and 23130
{awards their Shaw; that they became absolute owners in
3/?
/r\ .,
varadi before the revenue authorities, stating that right cf
second defendant if any was ex'ti.n,g11ished, That fl:1e,
below erred in ignoring the fact that pelease _
immovahie property valued more than Rs. 1()(_);'
by way of registered instrument. jthe .'
erred in holding that net proper
and necessary emfies judment anti
decree passed contrary to law
and oppeeeitfl. finder law. Hence, it is
prayed 2 by dismiasing the suit of
p1a,infie'§;' " % A' V' "
--v
£1". '1a1~gxureents of learned counsel for both
. . xecords. The substantial qtlestion of
raised in this appeal is:
_ ~ :"5?d1ether mere entry in the revenue
' reeerds can be a conclusive proof to deeiam the
as owner of the property?"
A' Admittedly, plajntifl' No.2 is the sister of defendant
..Ne.2 and plamee' Ne-.1 is the son of plaintflf No.1. The
defendant No.1 is the Wife of defendant No.2. Fmther, suit
judgment and decree passed in the: majntcnaficc
paxfifion suit filed by defendant fiz_4::
mvcnue documtnts disclose that:"»si1}_'(::t:'*
name of plaintifi No.2 and No.1 L'
records as paascsmrf of fiat revenue
records cannot be confer on them
the right of The plaintifis
have met or dmumcnt to
prove tpf: nvcyilu Vihcy have not clisclmcd
any _<_'.>f in the name of plamfifis.
No iota'-1' on record to show why her
11am'c~i.s entémd' ifi the revenue moords and how she become
" .O\5i#:2:ierE5't:f u"'E}3§€ and Whether them was any"
themin or the saint was by Way of any
f§'ex:,r§i1}'_V::':z;i:g*4:%11Ag:'<3ment. Such things has met been pleaded not
prové(iv__A?:}cfo1*c court. Mere can}? in the rrzvenuvsr rcccrds W311}
';+:;><_:;.fi"A.*..:c:-nfcr any titic to the plaizxfifis and on the basis of the
entries, tilt: plainfifis cammt be tczmcd as owners of suit
pmpcrtics. In this mgard, in case of STATE OF HIMACHAL
» which is :i}.iegaI, ixlcontct and the same is
~lik«i12;ie i;;:>«%5;:~ ._s€_£é1sidc.
pcxmafiént injunctian is concamed, £116: rcvcxme 11;-:(:o1ti3
befon:-, court clearly disciom plaintifis possession
fiver suit properties. No materia} has been piaccd on rccord
21
PRADESH --«vs- KESHAV RAM AND {ms *ELTR.
3998 KAR 1 it is held as under:
" Emu}? in a revenue : A'
stre-.tc:~.h of hnaginafion can'--._f<>rn:1 " baaifz-2 Vi-':_:_)'I~-. "
deoiaration. oftitlc." " ' % V
F'm"th::r, in case of sAw?AR "N1 [sM9i*'3. gfigrsi INEJER KAUR
[SMT] AND was rcportgci inA..{1'9£i6}6 "3{_ZiC 223,'whm-in it is
held thus: I
':'..«}'€I:V11ji:at:ici-#1 _. fiivénuc records,
cfibcij, ];1e1r;i",'V c_1oes«11:}~.t_ czpafis or cxtinguisll the title
I101'?haw.afiy'I,_presuni'p1:ii;c Ayaiuc on title, it only
eni;if;is;s'v».. 31¢ perscfi ~ pcncpiarned to pay land
:'HOW¢V€I# éasc, both the Courts bciow by
wrongly 'I::_1y'iI1g' oI17._i:;E1<:~7' revenue entries have given an
crrcépfficus f113V.c'ii11g_fi;1_,2;?i; plaintiifs are the absolute owners of
regard, prayer sf piainfifis for the relief of
by {icfcndant No.1 that she: is in possc$sion of suit
32
pmpcrties, her era} mridcncc before the
is aiso not hclpfixl to her. Onv-¥thc~«.oth§':r d"2s1
evidence of the parties discloses "
possession of suit pmpcr£:ié»;s,:j""s:§nccA 'i98i+S2.1 "sutih V
deems passed by dcfcnriants fionn
interfering with peaéeffif. sand enjoyment of
plaintiffs over suit not call for any
:i11tc1fcrcn§_:c.§'--.V 4' . "
submissions made by
counlssl p}ain1:ifi's have perfected their
title i have perused the issues
fra1§n'c:(§.j:3y nu issue was flamed by trial court
. there is a specific pleading found in
1 Cfixzmrt erred in not fzamm g any issue in
Even the parties went for trial without thcrc
being vsiny issue to this effect. Considering the fact that
proved their possession over suit properties and
V. Since right of owmszship ever the suit properties on the basis
of revenue entries Carma-t be declared ii: favour of p}aint':;fi"s.
-
oppommity to both parties to prove: and dispfifire' Parties to appear bcforc txiai Court on x V The ma} court is démctcd ._QfVbzg [-sir ' before 25~G4~2(}=09. Sczad back '{'.11f3'1'£§§':'f3I'dS 3 wsp