Bangalore District Court
Srinivasareddy M vs State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2024
KABC010064261996
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-9) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024.
PRESENT:
Sri HAREESHA A., B.A., LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4930/1996
Clubbed with
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4932/1996
PARTIES IN ORIGINAL SUIT No.4930/1996
PLAINTIFF : M. Srinivasa Reddy,
S/o. Late. B.Muniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at Hoody Village,
Bengaluru - 560048.
(By Sri H.T.J., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. The State of Karnataka
By Secretary to Government
Department of Commerce
and Industries, M.S.
Building, Bengaluru -
560001.
2. Karnataka Industrial
Tribunal Areas
Development Board,
nd
No.14/3, 2 Floor,
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Rastrothana Parishat
Building, By its Executive
Members.
(D.2 By Sri R.R., Advocate)
PARTIES IN ORIGINAL SUIT No.4932/1996
PLAINTIFF : H.K. Subbaraju,
S/o. Late. Krishnamaraju,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at Hoody Village,
Bengaluru - 560048.
(By Sri M.T.J., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. The State of Karnataka
By Secretary to Government
Department of Commerce
and Industries, M.S.
Building, Bengaluru -
560001.
2. Karnataka Industrial
Tribunal Areas
Development Board,
nd
No.14/3, 2 Floor,
Rastrothana Parishat
Building, By its Executive
Members.
(D.2 By Sri R.R., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 20-07-1996
Nature of the Suit : Declaration and
Permanent Injunction Suit.
Date of the commencement : 23-07-1997
of recording of the evidence
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Date on which the Judgment : 08-11-2024
was pronounced
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
-----------------------------------------
Total duration : 28 year/s, 3 months, 19 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(HAREESHA A.)
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have instituted these suits seeking a declaration of title and a consequential relief of injunction against the defendants.
2. Pursuant to an order dated 23.07.1997, both suits were consolidated for the recording of common evidence and a unified disposal.
3. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to outline the procedural trajectory of this litigation as it moved from this court to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and subsequently to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, through appeals and a Special Leave Petition. Initially, by a common judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003, Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
this court dismissed these suits with costs, prompting the plaintiffs to challenge the decision by filing separate appeals in RFA Nos. 591-593/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. On 15.09.2006, the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the appeals and the suits are partly decreed.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Defendant No. 2 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No(s) 6387/2009 which culminated in an order dated 16.08.2017, remanding the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for reconsideration. Subsequently, by a judgment dated 06.01.2023, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the case to this court for fresh consideration with liberty to the parties to make an application to lead further evidence. Thus, these suits are now before this Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the directives and observations set forth in the aforementioned order.
5. The succulent narrative of the plaintiffs' case is thus;
The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, granted 2 acres of land each to the plaintiffs in Survey Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
No. 144 of Hoodi Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, by order dated 29.06.1957, for an upset price. Pursuant to this grant, khata entries were duly registered in the names of the plaintiffs' father under MR No. 8/62-63 and 6/62-63, respectively. The plaintiffs claim that the Record of Rights, Tenancy, and Crops were subsequently mutated to reflect their title, and they have continuously cultivated the suit schedule property as its absolute owners, paying property taxes to the appropriate local authorities.
6. It is further contended that the entire extent of land in Sy. No. 144 originally measured 32 acres, which was allotted in smaller plots to various individuals and subsequently subdivided with new survey numbers, as Sy. Nos. 211 to 215, following a phodi (subdivision process). The plaintiffs claim that their properties adjoin an industrial layout developed by Defendant No. 2 in Sadarmangala Village. The plaintiffs have alleged that, in the late 1995 or early 1996, Defendant No. 2 encroached upon 8 guntas of their land in O.S. No. 4932/1996 to construct a road. Although the plaintiffs Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
raised no formal objection at that time, they accepted the construction as it was deemed beneficial for the development of the area and facilitated better utilization of their land.
7. On 05.02.1996, Defendant No. 2 purportedly invited the Hon'ble Chief Minister to lay the foundation stone for a building within the industrial layout. However, the site chosen for this ceremony allegedly encroached upon the plaintiffs' land, prompting immediate protest. The plaintiffs claim that, in response, the foundation stone was removed the following day. In response to a written representation from the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4931/1996, dated 28.02.1996, Defendant No. 2 requested a report from the Tahsildar on 29.03.1996 to verify the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs believe that the Tahsildar subsequently confirmed their rights by referencing the grant and associated revenue records.
8. In the week preceding the filing of this suit, contractors and employees of Defendant No. 2 allegedly began Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
clearing Eucalyptus bushes on the suit schedule property, aiming to build a road and establish a layout. Although the plaintiffs claim to have protested and temporarily halted this development, their attempts to engage Defendant No. 2's officials in dialogue regarding their legal rights were unsuccessful. The plaintiffs maintain that neither the Government of Karnataka nor Defendant No. 2 has acquired the suit schedule property, yet Defendant No. 2 continues to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the property, in disregard of the plaintiffs' ownership rights that have endured since the grant in 1957. The plaintiffs assert that the cause of action arose on 05.03.1996 and 05.07.1996 and has since continued. Consequently, the present suit has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs against Defendant No. 2's alleged interference.
9. Upon service of summons, Defendant No. 2 entered appearance through counsel and filed a written statement, refuting the averments made in the plaint. Nevertheless, Defendant No. 2 acknowledged that the majority of the land in Sy. No. 144 was granted to five Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
individuals and, following the phodi, the lands were assigned new survey numbers, namely Sy. Nos. 211 to
215. Defendant No. 2 further admitted to receiving a representation from the plaintiffs and claimed that the suit schedule property was acquired by Defendant No. 2 through a grant made by Defendant No. 1. It is also admitted that Defendant No. 2 ceased work on the suit schedule property only after an interim order was issued by the court.
10. Defendant No. 2 contends that a total extent of 84 acres and 34 guntas in various survey numbers within Hoodi Village, including 6 acres and 19 guntas in Sy. No. 144, was recommended for transfer in favor of Defendant No. 2 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, through letter No. LND(S)CR 517/91-92 dated 31.07.1993, addressed to the Secretary of the Revenue Department. Pursuant to this recommendation, the State Government, through Order No. RD251 LGD 91 dated 23.02.1994, accorded sanction for the grant of 84 acres and 34 guntas of Government land in favor of Defendant No. 2 at 50% of the market value.
Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Accordingly, Defendant No. 2 remitted a sum of Rs. 84,85,000/- to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, via cheque No. 027888, dated 21.04.1994, drawn on Corporation Bank, N.T. Road Branch, Bengaluru. Following this payment, possession of the land was transferred to Defendant No. 2 by the Revenue Inspector of K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, and Defendant No. 2 was formally put in possession on 19.06.1995, as evidenced by Possession Certificate No. LN/CR/426/94- 95, subsequently confirmed by the Tahsildar's letter dated 20.06.1995.
11. Defendant No. 2 contends that the plaintiffs, lacking any right, title, or possession over the suit schedule property, unlawfully interfered during the layout formation and obtained an interim order of status quo by allegedly relying on false and fabricated documents, while suppressing material facts. Defendant No. 2 disputes the authenticity of the documents produced by the plaintiffs to substantiate their title over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, Defendant No. 2 has sought dismissal of the suit with costs.
Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
12. Defendant No. 1, by filing a memo, adopted the written statement of Defendant No. 2 in its entirety.
13. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor in office framed the following issues for determination:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that interference?
4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the Government was the owner of the property in question and the same was granted to the second defendant?
5. To what relief and order the parties are entitled for?
14. Pursuant to the order dated 23.07.1997, these two suits, along with O.S. No. 4931/1996, were Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
consolidated for a common trial. To substantiate the plaintiffs' claims, Sri H.K. Subbaraju, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4932/1996, was examined as PW.1, with a substantial number of documents produced in his evidence, marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. In response, the defendants presented three witnesses: Sri R.V. Prakash, Lingegowda, and N. Hanumathu, who were examined as DW.1 to DW.3, with their documentary evidence marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21. Subsequent to the remand of the matter for additional evidence, PW.1 provided further testimony, during which additional documents, marked as Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.61, were produced. Additionally, Defendant No. 2 examined a witness as DW.4, produced an additional document marked as Ex.D.22 in support of their case. In the course cross-examination of DW.4, additional documents were introduced by the plaintiff's through confrontation and marked as Ex.P.60(a) to Ex.P.66.
15. I have heard the arguments presented by the counsels appearing for both parties and have perused the entire Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
evidence, introduced initially and the supplemental evidence adduced after remand for fresh consideration.
16. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.4 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
17. ISSUES No.1 to 4, 7 and 8 : To streamline the discourse and avoid redundancy, all points have been taken up together for concurrent consideration, facilitating a more concise analysis.
In support of the plaintiffs' claim, Shri H.K. Subbaraju, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4932/1996, was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 29.06.1957, the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru granted the suit schedule property to his father. The Grant Certificate has been produced in evidence as Ex. P-1. He further Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
stated that, following the grant, his father was put in possession of the land and they have consistently paid land revenue to the government. He submitted receipts evidencing these payments, marked as Ex.P-2 and P-3. Additionally, PW-1 deposed that, pursuant to the grant order, the khata was mutated in his father's name as per M.R.No.6/1992-93, which is marked as Ex.P-4. The plaintiff also presented the Record of Rights at Ex.P-5 and P-6 and the Encumbrance Certificates issued by the Special Registrar as Ex.P-7 and P-8. Following his father's demise, PW-1 affirmed that the revenue records were updated to reflect his name in Mutation as per M.R.No. 4/1995-96, which is documented as Ex.P 9. He further deposed that, in a similar manner, the revenue records in respect of lands granted to the fathers of other plaintiffs were also updated to reflect their names, and since the date of these grants, they have been in lawful possession of the suit schedule properties. However, PW-1 alleged that the second defendant attempted to construct a road within the suit schedule property. According to his testimony, the second defendant assured the plaintiffs that the matter would Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
be referred to the revenue authorities and higher officials. Accordingly, the matter was forwarded to the revenue authorities as evidenced by Ex.P-10. Subsequently, the revenue inspector visited the site, recorded statements from PW-1 and other plaintiffs, and prepared a mahazar at the site. Despite these actions, defendant No. 2 continued to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit schedule properties. PW-1 asserted that they remained in possession of the suit schedule properties as of the date of filing the suit.
18. PW-1 further deposed that, the defendant No. 2 unlawfully encroached upon approximately 5 to 8 guntas of land belonging to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4931/1996, to construct the road. The grant certificates issued to the fathers of the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 4930/1996 and 4932/1996 are marked as Ex.P-11 and P.16, respectively. Further, the Encumbrance Certificates and RTC extracts are marked as Ex.P-12 to P-15, while tax-paid receipts, copies of mutation entries, and RTC extracts related to the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 4931/1996 are marked as Ex.P-17 to P-21.
Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
PW-1 categorically deposed that the government has neither notified the suit schedule property for acquisition nor initiated any steps toward its acquisition. He produced a report dated 26.09.1996, submitted by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, and addressed to the Special Deputy Commissioner of the second defendant board, marked as Ex.P-22. Upon remand, PW-1 filed an affidavit in further chief examination, detailing a family partition dated 20.11.2008, in which the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 4932/1996 was allocated to his share. Consequently, the revenue records were updated in his name as per M.R.No. 23/2008-09. PW-1 has produced a certified copy of the registered Partition Deed as Ex.P- 27, along with the mutation order, RTC extracts, and agricultural passbook, marked as Ex.P-28 to P-61.
19. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that neither the original order nor the application submitted by his father for the land grant, were in his possession. He also testified that he does not possess the challan evidencing the payment of the upset price for the grant of land. He Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
acknowledged that the land was not demarcated with boundary stones and was not subdivided. PW-1 denied all other allegations and suggestions raised by the counsel for the defendants, including allegations of document fabrication. Following his further cross- examination, counsel for defendant No. 2 subjected him to additional cross-examination, wherein he reaffirmed that the suit schedule properties remain vacant.
20. On behalf of the defendants, one Shri R.V.Prakash, law officer was examined as DW.1 on behalf of defendant No.2 and in his evidence he claimed that, the suit schedule properties involved in all three suits are part and parcel of Government land bearing Sy.No.144 granted by the Government in favour of 2nd defendant as per order dated:23.02.1994, copy of the Government order is marked as per Ex.D.2. Further he deposed that as per the terms of grant, the defendant No.2 has paid a sum of Rs.84,85,000/- to the Government towards upset price at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Further he deposed that, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru had recommended to the Secretary, Revenue Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Department to hand over the land to the defendant as per Ex.D.4, the sketch is marked as Ex.D.3. The letter addressed to the Tahasildar while depositing the upset price through cheque is marked as Ex.D.5. The letter issued at the time of handing over the possession on 19.06.1995 is marked as Ex.D.6. He deposed that, the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are not genuine documents and no land was granted to the plaintiffs or their predecessor.
21. During cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that the plaintiffs had submitted representations to their office on 28.02.1996 and 01.03.1996. In response, the Special Deputy Commissioner, KIDB, directed the Tahsildar of Krishnarajapuram to clarify and submit a report on the matter. Accordingly, the report from the Tahsildar was received in the office of defendant No. 2, indicating that no RTC or Index of land records concerning the suit schedule properties were available in their office. This report, received on 26.09.1996, were marked as Ex.22 and P-23. The witness further deposed that the portions marked in green, pink, and blue were disputed areas.
Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
However, he asserted that the plaintiffs were claiming more access than what was originally granted. The sketch prepared by the surveyor was marked as Ex.P-
24. The witness acknowledged his personal knowledge of the disputed land, adding that his testimony was based on records and that no inquiries were made with the original grantees or about the mutation entries made in favor of the plaintiffs. In his cross-examination dated 05.01.1999, DW-1 testified that the remaining extent of 7 acres and 19 guntas in Sy. No. 144 was granted to the second defendant by the government through Government Order dated 23.02.1994. He admitted that, as per Ex.D-15, the RTC extracts/Pahanies of Sy. No. 144 for the years 1966-67 to 1986-87 were handed over to Ananthaina, a Revenue Inspector attached to the office of defendant No. 2. He further admitted that Ex.D-12 is a letter written by the Tahsildar on 12.11.1998 to the Special L.A.O. He also admitted that Ex.D-10 and D-16 to D-18 were prepared after his examination-in-chief. He denied suggestions that the documents submitted by the Tahsildar were withheld to deny the plaintiffs' rights.
Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
22. DW-2, Shri Lingegowda, was examined on behalf of defendant No. 2, having served as Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, from 24.08.1985. He testified that the suit schedule property falls within the jurisdiction of Krishnarajapuram Division. After visiting the location of Sy. No. 144 in Hoodi Village, he noted that the total extent of land in that survey number is 32 acres, of which 25 acres were granted to various individuals under the Darkhast scheme, while the remaining 7 acres and 2 guntas remained with the government. He stated that the suit schedule property was never allotted to the plaintiffs or their predecessors.
23. In Cross examination, he admitted that revenue sketches prepared to identify the granted portions of land are retained in the Tahsildar's office and are not provided to the grantee. He added that a register is maintained for issuing Saguvali Chits, which mention the respective blocks of granted land. During cross- examination, DW-2 acknowledged that Ex.P-22 and P- 23 were issued by him and confirmed that a register is maintained for land grants, where the orders issued by Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
the Deputy Commissioner are recorded. He admitted that the register of land grants maintained by the Deputy Commissioner's office was not produced in this case.
24. DW-3, Shri N. Hanumanthau, Tahsildar of K.R. Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk, corroborated the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, asserting that the documents produced by the plaintiffs were not genuine. He testified that the Deputy Commissioner holds authority to grant lands exceeding four acres. During cross-examination, he expressed ignorance about the land grant rules in effect prior to 1969. He admitted the issuance of Ex.P- 25, a certified copy of the order dated 05.11.1999 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. He also acknowledged the mutation entries in favor of the plaintiff's father and subsequently in favor of the plaintiff, as reflected in Ex.P-9. Further, he admitted that, as per Ex.D-19(a), the names of three plaintiffs are recorded as grantees, with a corresponding reference in the Deputy Commissioner's order. He confirmed the letter issued by the Tahsildar to the Special Deputy Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Commissioner, marked as Ex.P-22 and 23. He also admitted that, as noted in Ex.D-15, the available Pahanies from 1966-67 to 1986-87 for the suit schedule property were handed over to the Revenue Inspector Ananthaiah.
25. Upon remand, the defendants called S.M. Shivakumar, Special Land Acquisition Officer, as DW-4, who reiterated the averments in the written statement through an affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. He testified that, as per Ex.D-1, the government issued a Gazette Notification dated 06.09.1994, notifying 84 acres and 34 guntas in various survey numbers, including the suit schedule property, for acquisition. He further testified that the government, by order dated 23.02.1994 as per Ex.D-2, granted the land to defendant No. 2, who paid a sum of Rs. 84,85,000 as the upset price to the government. During cross- examination, DW-1 admitted that the revenue records for the suit schedule properties still reflect the plaintiffs' names, and in Column No. 12 of the RTC, the plaintiffs are shown as being in possession. He acknowledged Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
that the RTC records in the plaintiffs' names are marked as Ex.P-60(a) to P-66. He further admitted that, following the acquisition of land, a development officer prepared a layout plan before the allotment of industrial plots. He also confirmed that the suit schedule properties are currently vacant and that, per procedure, the KIADB executed a Sale Deed in favor of the allottees.
26. On the basis of the evidence presented, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously contended that the plaintiffs have discharged their initial burden of proving title to the property by adducing a substantial body of documentary evidence. The learned counsel has particularly relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka regarding appreciation of the evidence made in the order whereby the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Moreover, the learned counsel has contended that the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act against the plaintiffs were dropped, and in the process, the Deputy Commissioner directed the parties to maintain status Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
quo. The counsel further highlighted that the revenue records were issued in the names of the plaintiffs, which fact was acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Smt. Jayamma Venkatram and Another vs. Smt. Ashraf Jahan Begum and Another reported in ILR 2021 KAR 3559, wherein it was observed that the revenue entries in the plaintiffs' names had been continuously maintained without challenge, and where such entries remained unchallenged or were not overruled, there is no legal impediment to declaring title of the plaintiffs.
27. Conversely, the learned counsel for the defendant, in defense, vehemently argued that the remaining land in Sy. No. 144 of Hoodi Village, Bengaluru, originally belonged to the Government and was subsequently granted to Defendant No. 2 on the basis of a recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, as per his letter No. LND(S) CR 517/91-92 dated 31.07.1993. Following this recommendation, the Government formally granted the land to Defendant No. Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
2 on 23.02.1994, and the upset price for the land was duly paid by Defendant No. 2. The learned counsel for Defendant No. 2 further contended that Ex.P.1 and P.11 were fabricated documents, and it was argued that the plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence showing that, upon the grant, the revenue records were duly mutated in the names of the grantees. Moreover, with respect to Issue No. 2, it was contended that the defendant had adduced sufficient evidence in the form of Ex.D.2, which demonstrated that the land in question had been granted to Defendant No. 2 and that the plaintiffs had not challenged the same. Therefore, it was argued that Defendant No. 2 should be considered the rightful owner and in possession of the suit property. In light of the aforementioned arguments, the learned counsel for Defendant No. 2, relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, further submitted that entries in the revenue records, including mutation entries, cannot, in themselves, be relied upon to establish title to property. Accordingly, the defendants sought the dismissal of the suit, with costs.
{ Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
28. It is well settled position of law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the initial burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that they have a valid title to the property in question. This burden is fundamental to initiate and succeed in a civil suit, and it remains on the plaintiff unless specific facts or circumstances arise that would shift the burden to the defendant.
29. Upon considering the rival submissions and careful marshaling of the evidence adduced, it is apparent that the plaintiffs' claim is primarily based on documents issued by the revenue authorities, which were derived from grant orders, as evidenced by Ex.P.1, P.11, and P.16. The Hon'ble High Court, after a comprehensive appreciation of the entire record, remanded the matter with specific directions for the recording of fresh findings. It is pertinent to note that, on a previous occasion, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had decreed the suit; however, in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6387/2009, the matter was remanded back to the High Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Court. In its judgment dated 06.01.2023, the Hon'ble High Court made the following crucial observations:
"37. If the land of the plaintiffs is not acquired and suitable compensation is not paid to the plaintiff, the very acquisition is incorrect. Therefore, plaintiffs are justified in approaching the civil court seeking an order of declaration that their lands are not acquired by the Government and interference by the second defendant into the lands of the plaintiff is thus justified.
38. The learned trial judge however, based on the material evidence on record proceeded to place reliance only on Ex.D1 and the oral evidence of the defendant when set of documents are made available before the Trial Court, wherein the names of the plaintiffs are available in the revenue records, the Trial Court ought not to have disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs and ought not to have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
39. The approach of the Trial Court in not properly appreciating the documents of the plaintiff without seeking further clarification from the defendant as to how the names of the plaintiffs can be entered into revenue records and ignoring the revenue Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
entries and dismissing the suit of the
plaintiffs is thus in the considered opinion of this court is a perverse approach. No discussion or whatsoever is made by the learned Trial Judge with regard Ex.P23, P24, P25 in the impugned judgment. Placing reliance only on Ex.D21 without there being any further enquiry as to the rights of the parties that too in a civil suit seeking an order of declaration is thus in the considered opinion of this court has resulted in miscarriage of justice."
30. In my respectful view, upon considering the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court, as referenced above, it cannot be construed as an open remand, and the observations therein must not be disregarded. It is evident that, subsequent to the remand, the defendant has failed to place any material evidence on record to substantiate the claim that the suit schedule properties were, at any point, recorded in the name of the Government prior to the notification and grant, as reflected in Ex.D.1 and D.2. When the defendants have alleged fraud and fabrication of documents, the burden of proof lies squarely upon the Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
defendant to prove these allegations by presenting substantive and cogent evidence. It is an admitted fact that the revenue records have consistently stood in the names of the plaintiffs, as original grantees, since 1956- 57, with Mutation Registers duly registered in their names for the years 1962-63 and 1962-63, as per M.R. 6/62-63 and 8/62-63.
31. Apart from that, in the cross-examination of DW-1, DW-
2, and DW-3, it was categorically admitted that, according to Ex.D.15 a letter issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru, dated 26.11.1998, the Phanies of land in Survey No. 144 for the years 1966-67 to 1986-87 were handed over to the Revenue Inspector, Mr. Ananthaiah, who was attached to the office of Defendant No. 2. This admission by DW-1, DW-2, and DW-3 regarding the handing over of the Phanies pertaining to the suit schedule properties, coupled with their failure to produce the same in evidence, undermines the defendants' case. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a party withholds the best available evidence, an adverse inference must be drawn against them. The Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
defendants' failure to produce the relevant Phanies, despite the clear admission regarding their existence, casts serious doubt on the veracity of their defense.
32. The plaintiffs' claim is primarily based on the grant order issued by the Amaldar, as reflected in Ex.P.1 and P.11, under which the plaintiffs paid the upset price of Rs. 40/- to the Government. Subsequently, property tax payments were made, as evidenced by Ex.P.2, P.3, P.12, and P.13. In his testimony, DW-2 has admitted to the issuance of Ex.P.22 and P.23 in favor of the plaintiffs. Ex.P.22 specifically states that 2 acres of land in Survey No. 144 of Hoodi Village stood recorded in the name of Krishnan Raju as per Mutation Register No. 6/62-63, and after his death, it was mutated in the name of H.K. Subbaraju as per IHC 4/95-96. Further, with respect to another 2 acres in Survey No. 144, the name of one Nanja Reddy appeared in the mutation records as per M.R. No. 8/62-63, and upon his demise, it was subsequently registered in the name of Srinivas Reddy, as per IHC 3/95-96.
Cont'd..
- 30 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
33. DW-2 further testified that, as noted in Ex.P.22 and 23, during the spot mahazar, noticed and confirmed that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule property and had been cultivating it. Specifically, they had planted Eucalyptus trees on the land, and after cutting them down, the remnants of Eucalyptus boosters were found. Additionally, the remaining portion of the land was being cultivated with finger millet. It is significant to note that Ex.P.22 and 23 were issued by DW-2 under the direction of the Special Deputy Commissioner of KAIDB, and Ex.P.24, a survey sketch prepared by the Tahsildar at the time of the spot mahazar, further corroborates the plaintiffs' possession and cultivation of the land. The sketch clearly identifies areas marked in green, red, and blue, all of which were under the plaintiffs' possession and cultivation.
34. Moreover, Ex.P.25, which is an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in RRT (CR) 6/1997-98 dated 5.11.1999 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, recorded the findings based on the records and the report submitted by the Tahsildar. It Cont'd..
- 31 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
was conclusively found that the revenue records for the land in Survey No. 144, measuring 7 acres 2 guntas, have stood in the name of the plaintiffs since 1962-63. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"I have carefully examined the records and considered the contentions put-forth on behalf of the respondents.
As it clear from the records and report of the Tahasildar, there is no denying of facts that, entries in the revenue records in respect of lands in question in Sy.No.144 in so far as 7 acres 2 guntas stands in the name of respondents since 1962-93. Further as per survey sketch, the lands in questions are in possession of the respondents herein."
35. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Special Deputy Commissioner has acknowledged the mutation entries in favor of Krishnan Raju and Muniswamy as per M.R. Nos. 6, 7, 8/62-63. Subsequent to their demise, the mutation records were updated in the names of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the proceedings were dropped, and the office was directed to maintain the status quo Cont'd..
- 32 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
in respect of the revenue records until the disposal of the suit. The order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner cannot be disregarded, as it was made based on the available records and the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the official custodian of the relevant documents.
36. The plaintiffs have produced a certified copy of the Partition Deed dated 20.11.2008, wherein the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 4932/1996 was allotted to the plaintiffs' share. Pursuant to this, the Khata was registered as per M.R. No. 23/2008-09. It is also noteworthy that, as evident from Ex.P.29 to P.59, which include the mutation register extracts and RTC extracts from 2001 to 2021, the property is now assigned a new survey number, Sy. No. 144/P2. Ex.P.60, the Agricultural Passbooks, further confirms that the plaintiffs have been cultivating the suit schedule property since 30.05.1993 and 30.06.1993. As previously discussed, according to the report submitted by the Tahsildar to the Special Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiffs were found cultivating Eucalyptus trees on Cont'd..
- 33 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
the land, which were subsequently removed, with remnants of Eucalyptus boosters observed. This evidence, coupled with the plaintiffs' long-standing cultivation of finger millet on the land, strongly establishes their continuous possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property for several decades.
37. The learned counsel for the defendants has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durga Das v. Collector and Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 618, Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. and Others reported in 2014 AIAR (Civil) 113, and Padmakumari and Others v. Dasayyan and Others reported in 2015 AIAR (Civil) 547, to contend that revenue records cannot be considered as conclusive evidence of title. In Durga Das v. Collector, (supra) the plaintiff had sought compensation based on the assertion that he was shown as a tenant with respect to a portion of land. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred in relying on the revenue records to declare title in favor of the plaintiff. The Court clarified that, in the context of Cont'd..
- 34 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
mutation entries, uniform tests cannot be applied, and such entries do not automatically confer title.
38. In Union of India v. Vasavi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., (supra) the Court reiterated that in a suit for title and possession, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for the grant of such declarations. It was held that revenue entries do not confer title and should not be treated as documents of title. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. Venkatesh Reddy, (supra) reiterated this principle, emphasizing that mutation entries merely enable the person in whose favor they are made to pay the relevant land revenue, and do not create or extinguish title. In my humble view, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions are applicable in situations where there is no substantive evidence to prove the acquisition of title to the disputed land. However, in the present case, the plaintiffs are not relying solely on mutation entries or revenue records but are also relying on the grant order passed by the Amaldar under the land grant rules in force at the time. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, when the defendants Cont'd..
- 35 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
have alleged that the plaintiffs' documents are
fraudulent and have denied their title, the burden of proving such allegations lies on the defendants. It is for the defendants to substantiate their claims with credible and admissible evidence.
39. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs by relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. Jayamma Venkataram and Another Vs. Smt. Ashraf Jahan Begum and Another (supra) has contended that, considering the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property for a long time and revenue entries stands in the lineage of his family continuously without any challenge, inference to be drawn about legitimacy of title. The Hon'ble High Court in the above said decision has held thus;
" 25. Having answered points (i) and (ii), I find that Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act may be referred to here to give ultimate conclusion as regards title over the suit property. Section 110 reads : -
"110. Burden of proof as to ownership.-- When the question is whether any person Cont'd..
- 36 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
is owner of anything of which he is
shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner".
26. The possession of the suit property is found to be with the plaintiffs. The question is as regards their ownership. Though I began the discussion on point No. (i) holding that the initial burden was on the plaintiffs to prove their title, ultimately the possession was found to be with the plaintiffs and therefore the actual burden, if Section 110 of the Evidence Act is applied, was on the defendants to prove that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property. The foregoing discussion shows on one hand that they have failed to prove it, and on the other hand to establish their title also. Hence as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the former's title would get established, but it is not so as against a person who may be having better title than the plaintiffs."
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 472, dealt with a similar set of facts, where a suit was filed for the declaration of title, held as follows:
Cont'd..
- 37 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
"19. Section 110 of the Evidence Act reads thus:
"110. Burden of proof as to ownership.--When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner."
20. It embodies the principle that possession of a property furnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership. The presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title.
21. This Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander [AIR 1968 SC 1165 : 1968 Ker LT 182] observed: (AIR p. 1173, para 15) "That possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the facts are Cont'd..
- 38 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
known. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides."
22. The pattedars proved their possession of the lands in question from 1312 Fasli (1902 AD) as pattedars. There is long and peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question but no proof of conferment of patta on the late Raja and the facts relating to acquisition of title are not known. The appellant State could not prove its title to the lands. On these facts, the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act applies and the appellants have to prove that the pattedars are not the owners. The appellants placed no evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the pattedars' title to the land in question has to be upheld."
41. While the facts of the present case may not bear striking similarity to those in the aforementioned cases, the documents produced by the plaintiffs unequivocally establish that the suit schedule properties were granted to their predecessors. Moreover, for several decades, the Cont'd..
- 39 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
revenue authorities have not raised any challenge to the authenticity of the entries in their records nor made any efforts to reclaim possession of the land. In light of this, it is my considered view that a presumption in favor of the plaintiffs' title can be drawn under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that when a party has been in possession of property for a considerable period, it is presumed that they have title to it, unless the contrary is proved. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have successfully proved their title over the suit schedule properties.
42. The learned counsel for Defendant No. 2 has vehemently contended that the plaintiffs are out of possession of the suit schedule property and, therefore, are not entitled to the relief of declaration. However, upon careful examination of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, it appears that a portion of the land, belonging to the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4931/1996, has been appropriated by Defendant No. 2 for the construction of a road. During the cross-examination of Cont'd..
- 40 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
DW-1 through DW-4, it was categorically admitted that the suit schedule property remains vacant. Moreover, it was acknowledged that a status quo order had been issued earlier, and the Deputy Commissioner had directed the maintenance of the status quo until the disposal of the present suit.
43. It is a well-settled position of law that, once it is found that the plaintiff having title was in possession, the law presumes continuity of that possession. The maxim "possession follows title" comes up for application in cases where it has been proved that the person having the title was once in actual possession and the application of principle is based on the presumption of the continuance of the possession. As per the entries in the RTC extracts and the report of the Tahsildar under Ex.P.22 and 23, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, the defendants have failed to produce the approved layout plan, which was required to be prepared by the Development Officer of the second defendant Board. Furthermore, they have not provided Cont'd..
- 41 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
any evidence to demonstrate that the suit schedule property was utilized for the formation of industrial sheds or allotted to any beneficiaries, despite the plaintiffs' specific contention that the suit schedule properties have not been allotted to any person or entity. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have established both their title and possession over the suit schedule properties, and that the defendants' interference with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the same is evident. Therefore, I constrained to answer Issues No. 1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
44. ISSUES No.4 : Defendant No. 2 has disputed the plaintiffs' title to the suit schedule property, while asserting that the property belongs to the Government. According to Defendant No. 2, the property was notified under Ex.D.1 and subsequently granted to them through Ex.D.2. In light of these claims, Issue No. 4 was framed, placing the burden on Defendant No. 2 to substantiate their assertions. Upon perusal of the evidence presented by Defendant No. 2, it is apparent Cont'd..
- 42 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
that, apart from mere oral assertions, no documentary evidence has been provided to establish that, prior to the issuance of Ex.D.1, or Ex.D.2, the suit schedule property was registered in the name of the Government. The absence of any substantive documents further weakens the defendants' position. It is undisputed that, under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Government is considered the owner of land that has not been granted or owned by any individual. However, in the present case, if the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the land was granted to them, the burden then shifts on the Defendant No. 2 to disprove the plaintiffs' claim and show that it is unsustainable.
45. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its order while remanding the case to this court has observed that if the plaintiffs' land was not acquired and no suitable compensation was paid, then the acquisition itself would be deemed unlawful. The Court also noted that the Government had withheld the best evidence from the trial court, which would have been essential in Cont'd..
- 43 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
determining the validity of the land grant.
Notwithstanding these observations, after the remand, Defendant No. 2 has failed to adduce any additional evidence to support their claim, except for Ex.D.22 an authorization letter. This solitary document fails to substantiate the defendants' claims regarding the title or grant of the suit schedule property. In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered opinion that the defendants have not met the burden of proving Issue No. 4. Consequently, I am compelled to answer Issue No. 4 in the Negative.
46. ISSUE No.5 : For the reasons outlined above and the discussion herein, I am of the considered view that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties, as sought. Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is answered in the Affirmative, Consequently the following;
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs in O.S
No.4930/1996 and O.S No.4932/1996 are decreed with cost.
Cont'd..
- 44 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
The defendants, their employees,
contractors and other claiming through them are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Copy of the original judgment shall be kept in O.S No.4932/1996) (Dictated to Stenographer in open court, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced on this the 8 th day of November, 2024.) (HAREESHA. A) XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : H.K. Subbaraju 23-07-1997
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 Grant Certificate.
Exs.P2 Land Revenue paid receipts.
and P3
Ex.P4 Copy of Mutation.
Exs.P5 Record of Rights.
and P6
Exs.P7 Nil Encumbrance Certificates.
and P8
Cont'd..
- 45 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Ex.P9 Copy of the Mutation.
Ex.P10 Copy of the reference.
Ex.P11 Grant Certificate.
Ex.P12 Land revenue paid receipt.
Ex.P13 Nil Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P14 Records of Right.
Ex.P15 Nil Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P16 Grant Certificate.
Exs.P17 Tax paid receipts.
and P18
Ex.P19 Copy of the Mutation.
Ex.P20 Pahani of the land.
Ex.P21 Nil Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P22 Letter dated:26.9.1996.
Ex.P23 Report dated: 26.9.1996.
Ex.P24 Sketch.
Ex.P25 Order in Case No.RRT (CR) 6/1997-98.
Ex.P26 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P27 Certified copy of registered Partition
Deed.
Exs.P28 Mutation Orders.
to P.30
Exs.P31 RTC Extracts.
to P59
Cont'd..
- 46 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Exs.P61 Agricultural Passbooks.
and P62
Exs.D60(a) RTC Extracts.
to 66
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Examined on:
D.W.1 : R.V Prakash 04-11-1998 D.W.2 : Lingegowda D.W.3 : N. Hanumanthu
4.DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D1 Gazette Notification dated:6.9.1994.
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the order.
Ex.D3 Sketch.
Ex.D4 Recomendation of Spl.D.C dated:
31.7.1997.
Ex.D5 Letter addressed to the Tahasildar.
Ex.D6 Possession handover letter.
Ex.D7 Reiteration letter regarding possession.
Ex.D8 Gazette Notification.
Ex.D9 Sketch.
Ex.D10 Certified copy of Aakarband.
Ex.D11 Letter dated: 4.9.1997.
Ex.D12 Letter dated: 12.11.1998.
Cont'd..
- 47 - O.S. No.4930/1996
C/W O.S No.4932/1996
Ex.D13 Letter dated: 13.11.1998.
Ex.D14 Letter dated: 27.11.1998.
Ex.D15 Letter dated: 26.11.1998.
Ex.D16 Uttar copy in respect of Sy.No.144.
Exs.D17 Copies of Tippani.
and D18
Ex.D19 Register of Saguvali Chits.
Ex.D19(a) Relevant entry.
Ex.D20 Document regarding the extent.
Ex.D21 Memorandum regarding darkast
proceedings.
Ex.D22 Authorization Letter.
(HAREESHA A.)
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..