Karnataka High Court
Devaraj vs Sri. Narasimha Raju on 16 September, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36963
RSA No. 1179 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1179 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. DEVARAJ,
S/O. LATE NARASEEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. JAGADESH
S/O. LATE NARASEEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
3. PUTTASWAMY
S/O. LATE NARASEEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NAGATHENHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by TARIDALU MAJARA,
MALATESH THONDEBHAVI HOBLI,
KC GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 213,
Location: CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. LAKSHMAKKA
D/O. LATE RAMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
5. RAMADEVI
D/O. LATE RAMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36963
RSA No. 1179 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O. LATE RAMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
7. SUNANDAMMA
D/O. LATE RAMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
8. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O. LATE OBALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
9. SRI. BASAPPA
S/O. LATE OBALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
10. GURURAJ. N. N.
S/O. LATE CHIKKA HANUMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
11. KUMARASWAMY. N. N.
S/O. CHIKKAHANUMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 4 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR GPA HOLER GURURAJ N.N
I.E., APPELLANT NO. 10 HEREIN.
APPELLANTS 4 TO 7 ARE
R/AT NAGATHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MAZARA TARIDAL, TARIDAL POST - 561 213,
THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 213.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36963
RSA No. 1179 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. NARASIMHA RAJU
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. SRI. PUTTAIAH
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
4. SRI. CHANDRAIAH
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ALL AR RESIDING AT TARIDAL,
MAZARA, NAGATHIHALLI,
TARIDAL POST - 561 213,
THONDEBHAVI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 213,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VIJAYA M.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2024 PASSED IN
RA NO.84/2023 PASSED ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA.,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.12/2017
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:36963
RSA No. 1179 of 2024
HC-KAR
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
GOWRIBIDANUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Vijaya M. N., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Plaintiffs have filed the present appeal challenging the validity of the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit property):
A part and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.125/1, measuring 4 acres 17 gt plus kharab of 02 gt situated at Taridal village, Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded by:
East by - lands of Kunti Basappa and Lakshmidevamma West by - land of hazi Miani son of Abdul Sattar Sab -5- NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR North by - lands of Hanumanthappa South by - lands of Mallanna and others
3. Facts in the nut shell for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. A suit came to be filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property by contending that one Kempaiah was the common prepositus of the family.
3.2. He had four children namely Narasappa, Muddanna, Obalappa and Chowdappa. All these children are no more and first son of Kempaiah namely Narasappa died leavhing behind his two sons namely Naraseeyappa and Narayanappa. Second son of Kempaiah was left behind by his wife - Ramakka and third son of Kempaiah was left behind by two sons namely Naraisimha Murthy and Basappa. Fourth son of Kempaiah died leaving behind his wife - Chikka Hanumakka, who is the plaintiff No.5.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR 3.3. It is contended that the suit property was owned and possessed by Kempaiah and after his death, his first son Narasappa got mutated his name in the revenue records from the year 1962 - 1963 to 1982 -
1983.
3.4. It is further contended that the suit property was mortgaged in faovur of Mysore Central Cooperative L. M. Bank. After the death of Narasappa, his sons namely Naraseeyappa and Narayanappa inherited the suit property and they are rustic villagers.
3.5. It is further contended that Subbanna son of Narasimhaiah was the absolute owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.128/1B which is situated adjacent to the suit property.
3.6. After the death of Subbanna, his son Narasimharaju filed an application to get the revenue entries mutated in his name as per the inheritance on 22.04.1983. At that juncture, defendant No.1 has not -7- NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR only mutated the entries in respect of the his ancestral property but also included the suit property without the knowledge of the plaintiffs.
3.7. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that revenue officials without proper verification of the records and rights of the parties, transferred the revenue entries in the name of defendant No.1 but plaintiffs continued in possession of the suit property.
3.8. When defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property in the month of July 2016, plaintiffs furnished the documents and noted that the revenue entries were transferred in the name of defendant No.1 clandestinely and thus, approached the Court for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared through their Advocate and filed common written statement denying the plaint averments in toto.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. According to them, suit property is their ancestral property and after the death of their four fathers, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
6. It is also contended that the suit property was mortgaged by the defendants in favour of Alipura Vyavasaya Sahakara Bank Limited and raised loan from Bank of Baroda by mortgaging the suit property.
7. It is also contended that there are two bore-
wells dug by the defendants in the suit property and they have obtained the electricity connection for the pump and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without interference by anybody and plaintiffs have filed a false suit and sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and by cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary -9- NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.84/2023.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court entertained the appeal and after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 20.04.2024, dismissed the appeal.
11. Before the First Appellate Court, additional evidence was placed on record along with the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noted that the tax paid receipt filed along with the suit did not contain the survey number of the suit property and so also the mortgage deed said to have been filed along with the application, did not contain the number of the suit
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR property and therefore, rejected the additional evidence as well by answering point No.4 against the appellants.
13. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellants are before this Court, in this appeal, on following grounds and raising substantial questions of law:
GROUNDS The impugned judgment and decree rendered by both courts suffers from the vires of total non- application of mind.
The impugned judgment and decree of both the courts are contrary to law, facts and the legal evidence available on record.
Both the courts have failed to apply law to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case which resulted in passing an erroneous judgment and decree.
Both the courts have failed to comprehend the facts pleaded by the parties and the law on the point which ended in passing an erroneous judgment and decree.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR The trial court has not framed proper issues for consideration and those framed by it did not cover the case of the parties.
The first appellate court has failed to frame proper points and those framed did not cover the pleadings of the parties.
Both the courts have not drawn proper inferences and those drawn are illegal and erroneous.
Both the courts have not raised proper presumption and those drawn are illegal and arbitrary and probabilities of the case have not given weightage.
Both the courts have committed serious error in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs based on improper appreciation of the materials available on record.
The reasons assigned by both the courts in support of the findings are not legal and sound regard being had to the materials on record and the principles of law.
The reasons given by both the courts in reaching the conclusion or in answering issues are not sound, legal and proper. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court is liable to be set aside.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR It is submitted that the first appellate court being the final fact finding court has got full and abundant power to reexamine the pleadings and evidence from all angles. But the first appellate court lost its sight in exercising that power which has been resulted in illegality as it has passed unreasoned and cryptic judgment.
It is submitted that the first appellate court in its judgment in operative portion has ordered stating that the regular appeal preferred by the plaintiffs- appellants has been dismissed and confirmed the trial court judgment and decree. Whereas in the decree it has been ordered the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 R/w Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is hereby allowed but confirmed the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court. This clearly goes to show that though first appellate court intended to allow the appeal unknowing by recording unsustainable findings dismissed the appeal which is highly perverse and capricious.
It is further submitted that the impugned judgment is not in consonance with the decree passed by the first appellate court therefore the findings recorded by the first appellate court are highly perverse,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR capricious and illegal and accordingly is liable to be set aside.
Both the courts have not appreciated that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs who have urged that it comes to them or inherited from their propositus Kempaiah. In support of the same, revenue records have been produced to show that it is their ancestor's property but, both the courts have miserably failed to appreciate the evidence placed before them by the plaintiffs.
Both the courts on one hand observed that the plaintiffs have not produced proper documentary evidence. But the documents which are referred in paragraph 16 of the trial court judgment the name of Narasappa who is the 1st son of Kempaiah stood in his name from the year 1962-63 to 1982-83 and also the suit schedule land was mortgaged with Mysore Central Co-operative L.M.Bank. These documents clearly establishes that it has been inherited by the plaintiffs from their propositus Kempaiah and also both courts failed to examined and appreciate that the how the defendants No.1 has got mutate his names in the revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule property has been clearly pleaded and proved, since defendant No.1
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR got mutated his name by deleting the name of Narasappa even though the defendant No.1 not related in any manner either to Narasappa or to the suit schedule property. This being the fact both the courts discarding the material facts arrived at wrong and illegal conclusion and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs is highly illegal, perverse and capricious. Accordingly the impugned judgment and decree not sustainable under the law.
It is further submitted that Ex.P25 the record of rights for the year 1987-88 clearly reflects the name of Narasappa S/o. Kempaiah however, as per the M.No.20/82-83 bracketing the name of Narasappa S/o. Kempalah, the name of Narasimaiah S/o. Subbanna has been mutated. This is quite evident that before entering the name of Narasimaiah the suit land was stood in the name of Narasappa S/o. Kempaiah. This aspect has not been properly and critically examined by both the courts. Therefore, the finding of both the courts regarding this document is highly illegal, perverse and capricious, as such the impugned findings not sustainable under the law.
It is further submitted that both the courts have committed grave error by accepting the evidence of the defendants. One thing is very clear the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR plaintiffs by producing the documents have clearly urged that even in the year 1977-78 and 1978-79 suit Sy.No.125/1 stood in the name of Narasaiah S/o. Kempaiah. But in the year 1977-78 and 1978- 79 Narasimaiah's name is in cultivator's column.
Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 clearly establishes that the suit property during that time stood in the name of Narasaiah S/o. Kempaiah. This aspect has not been properly examined.
It is further submitted that in Ex.P21 clearly mentioned that Sy.No.125/1 is in the name of Narasappa. But both the survey numbers are in possession of applicant Narasimaiah. When this has been observed by the revenue authorities it is quite clear that Sy.No.125/1 while mutating the name of Narasimhaiah stood in the name of Narasappa S/o. Kempaiah and not in the name of Subbanna. Therefore the very mutation accorded by the revenue authorities is highly illegal. But both the courts having ample power to examine the documents, critically failed to do so, which resulted in illegality.
Further, it is submitted that both the courts miserably failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs which resulted in illegality.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR It is further submitted that in a suit for declaration the defendants were also having equal burden to prove their case Independently. The plaintiffs have specifically and expressly pleaded that after death of Subbanna the defendant No.1 Narasimaiah who owned the land bearing Sy.No.128/1B got mutated his name after death of Subbanna in the year 1982-83, also got mutated his name to the suit land. This aspect is glary and apparent from the records Ex.P25 and Ex.P21. These documents clearly explained the illegal act of the defendants as well as the revenue authorities. In spite of clinching evidence available on record both the courts have discarded that and held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their title to the suit schedule property though it is burden of the defendants equally establish their contentions that it is their ancestor's property. But the trial court without giving any finding on the issue No.4 wrongly held that the issue would not survive for consideration.
It is further submitted that as provided under the provisions of Order XX Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court bound to give its findings on each one of the issues. But the trial court in the present case on hand without giving any any findings on Issue No.4 it has observed that
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR that issue does not survive for consideration and that the same has been confirmed by the first appellate court without reexamining the materials on record. Therefore, the findings of both the courts are highly illegal, perverse and capricious.
It is further submitted that though the defendants have contended that it is their ancestral property equally they are also equally prove the case independently having burden to prove their contentions by adducing cogent evidence. But in the present case on hand at the inception itself while having the mutation No.20/82-83 revenue authorities made a reference that Sy.No.125/1 stood in the name of Narasappa S/o. Kempaiah. That aspect has not been properly explained by the defendants though they much placed reliance on that document Ex.P21. This evidence has not been properly looked into by both the courts which resulted in illegality.
It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have put all bonafide efforts to bring the material evidence which were traced later in support of that case. The list clearly goes to show that it is not only the tax paid receipts it also registered sale deed in the year 1921. Encumbrance certificates for the year 1944- 45 and such other documents, certainly which
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR would throw light on the plaintiffs' case regarding their title but the first appellate court held that those documents are not proper documents to establish the title. It is to be noted that unless those documents are permitted to produce and admitted them in the evidence, the findings on those documents cannot be given. But in the present case on hand the first appellate court in its paragraph 23 of its judgment gave findings holding that those documents not pertains to the suit schedule property. Therefore, the findings recorded in paragraph 23 and 24 of the judgment of the first appellate court are highly illegal and perverse.
It is further submitted that the documents are the good old documents and ancient documents even in the land revenue receipts name and survey numbers mentioned it clearly establishes that Kempaiah was holding not in Sy.No.125 and other survey numbers also that can be seen from the receipt dated 14/06/1933. Therefore, the documents which are intended to be produced are having certain bearing certain merits in the plaintiff's case and plaintiffs could have been allowed to produce those documents. The Patta Book for the year 1936-37 and the Index of Lands for the year 1936-37 would clearly assist the plaintiffs to establish that the suit claim was owned
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR and possessed by the plaintiffs' propositus Kempaiah.
Therefore, the findings of the first appellate court on Point No.4 is highly illegal, perverse and capricious.
It is submitted that both the courts consistently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the case but both oral and documentary evidence speaks contrary to the findings of both the courts and also say that both the courts have committed grave error without examining the evidence on record and come to the wrong conclusion.
Viewed the matter from any angle and regard being had to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate court dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to materials on record and against the settled pronouncements thus, it is liable to be set aside.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
1. Whether both the courts were right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their title in the manner known to law?
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. Whether both the courts have gone wrong in not considering the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs to establish their title showing that their propositus Kempaiah was holding the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the appreciation of evidence made by both the courts is in accordance with principles governing appreciation of evidence?
4. Whether the first appellate court finding on additional evidence without permitting the plaintiffs to produce those documents and admitting them in evidence is sustainable under law?
5. Whether the finding of both the courts in respect of Issue No.4 is sustainable under Order XX Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
6. Whether the first appellate court is right in law in discarding the interlocutory application for production of additional evidence which are ancient and century old documents?
14. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that both the Courts have not appreciated the case of the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR appellants properly and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which needs to be corrected by this Court by entertaining the above second appeal on the aforesaid ground and substantial questions of law.
15. He would further contend that dismissal of the application filed along with the appeal and additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by the First Appellate Court has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 supports the impugned judgments by contending that no iota of evidence is placed on record by the plaintiffs to establish the ownership right over the suit property and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
17. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR
18. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit of the plaintiff is one for declaration and consequential injunction.
19. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that in a suit for declaration, plaintiffs have to establish their legal title over the suit property.
20. In the case on hand, revenue entries are the only documents that are placed on record to establish title over the suit property.
21. How Kempaiah got the suit property is not pleaded by the plaintiffs nor any proof is placed on record.
No doubt, tax paid receipts and mortgage deed said to have been placed on record along with the application seeking to place additional evidence before the First Appellate Court.
22. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the judgment has held
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR discussion in detail about the question of admitting the additional evidence on record as under:
"23. By this application appellants have produced the tax paid receipts of the year 1929 to 1944 but in the said document the survey number is not mentioned. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that those document belongs to the suit schedule property. Even it is not the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that their ancestors were having the suit schedule property from the year 1934. Under such circumstances only because of those revenue receipts, it will not help the appellants in proving his ownership over the suit schedule property.
24. The appellant has also produced the mortgage deed. In the mortgage deed also the survey number of the property is not mentioned and said mortgage deed is of 1944-45. Under such circumstances it cannot said that the said mortgage deed is in respect of the suit schedule property. The appellants have produced the old documents prior to 1962-63 but claims the katha of the suit property is made in the name of their ancestor Narasappa from the year 1962-63. Therefore, these documents produced by the plaintiffs/ appellants are of no use to decide the ownership of the appellants/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Therefore, this application is not sustainable."
23. Admittedly, no other document is placed on record to establish that Kempaiah was the owner of the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR property and thereafter, his son Narasappa became the owner of the suit property.
24. Admittedly, revenue entries even as per the plaint stopped in the year 1982 - 1983. What happened thereafter is not forthcoming on record and no explanation is forthcoming.
25. Merely on the ground that plaintiffs were the rustic villagers, Court cannot grant the decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property.
26. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the suit by both the Courts is just and property which requires no further interference in this appeal by entertaining the appeal further.
27. Accordingly, the following:
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36963 RSA No. 1179 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58/CT: BHK