Karnataka High Court
Ameervali S/O Khasim Sab vs Mahaboob Subhani on 28 November, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311
RSA No. 200387 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200387 OF 2022
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
AMEERVALI S/O KHASIM SAB,
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MACHANUR VILLAGE,
OF MANVI TALUKA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUBASAVA BASANNA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
RAMESH AND:
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MAHABOOB SUBHANI S/O B. IMMANNA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MACHANUR VILLAGE,
OF MANVI TALUKA,
NOW AT PRAGATI NAGAR,
MARALI SUGAR FACTORY
GANGAVATHI-583227.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PRAKRUTI BORALKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ABDUL MUQHTADIR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311
RSA No. 200387 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT
IN R.A. NO.48/2014 DATED 26-10-2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. SINDHANUR SITTING AT
MANVI, BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED
BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AT MANVI, IN O.S. NO.36/2010 DATED
20-06-2013. B) IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE
PLAINTIFF WITH COSTS AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. C) PASS ANY
OTHER ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) This appeal is by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2018 passed in R.A.No.48/2014 (Old No.36/2013) on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur sitting at Manvi, (for short 'the First Appellate Court') by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2013 passed in O.S.No.36/2010 on -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi (for short 'the Trial Court') and consequently decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit properties and consequently issued permanent injunction restraining defendant/appellant herein from interfering with the possession of the plaint over the suit properties.
2. The above suit in O.S.No.36/2010 filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and injunction and rectification of records of right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.200/AA measuring 3 acres 20 guntas and land in Sy.No.203/E measuring 3 acres 30 guntas situated at Marchanur Village, Manvi.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is originally held and possessed by his father known and called as Bombay Immanna S/o: Bade Sab. He had relinquished his rights in favour of his elder son Ramjansab, who was taking care of the affairs of the family in the capacity of elder son. The revenue records were entered in the name of his brother Ramjansab. On -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR the death of father of the plaintiff, his brother Ramjansab was residing with the plaintiff. He was unmarried and remained bachelor during his lifetime. Plaintiff was taking care of his necessities in the capacity of duty bound younger brother. Under the circumstances said Ramjansab executed a gift deed (Hibanama) in respect of the said suit property and delivered the possession of the same in favour of the plaintiff on 05.08.1980. Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property ever since then. Though the plaintiff had sought for his name to be entered in the revenue records, the authorities declined to enter his name as the gift deed was not a registered document. That the defendant is the owner of adjacent land and is not concerned anyway with the suit schedule property in any manner. However, he is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. He is claiming right over the suit schedule property on the pretext of an agreement of sale in his favour allegedly executed by the plaintiff. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR Constraining the plaintiff to approach the Court seeking relief of declaration and injunction. Defendant on receipt of summons though appeared through the counsel and despite being provided sufficient opportunities has not filed written statement.
4. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 33 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P33. Plaintiff also examined two witnesses in support of his case as PWs.2 and 3. Defendant neither filed written statement nor cross-examined the witnesses. The Trial court framed the following point for its consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves he is entitled to the relief's claimed in the plaint?
2. What order or decree?
5. The Trial Court found that though the plaintiff has produced 33 documents including deed of gift, he has not produced document to show how the his Bombay Immamanna S/o: Badesab and Ramajansab acquired the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR suit property as it creates cloud over the deed of gift produced at Ex.P33 in the absence of relevant title deeds.
Accordingly, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the regular appeal in R.A.No.48/2014 (Old No.36/2013). The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the brother of the plaintiff has executed a gift deed in his favour gifting the suit schedule properties in his favour?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether appellant/plaintiff proves that the judgement and decree of the trial court is not in accordance with law and it is perverse?
4. Whether appellant/plaintiff proves that the interference of this court is very much necessary to the judgment and decree of the trial court?
5. What order or decree?
6. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos. 1 to 4 in the affirmative and consequently allowed the appeal and -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant taking this Court through the record submits that though the appellant/defendant has not filed written statement, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to have proved the case in a manner known to law. Since the plaintiff has not produced the documents of title either of his father or of his brother, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit which ought not to have been reversed by the First Appellate Court. He further submits that the appellant had no opportunity of presenting his case. The weakness of the defendant ought not to have been the ground for the First Appellate Court to decree the suit. That mere revenue records could not confer any title. The gift deed not being registered could not have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court.
Therefore, he submits substantial question of law would arise for consideration and seeks for allowing of the appeal.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel for respondent appearing through the video conference submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with as there is no rebuttal to the evidence led in by the plaintiff. There is consistent and undisturbed entries in the revenue records and there is no reason not to rely upon the same. That as the unregistered gift deed is permissible under the personal laws governing the parties, the same need not be registered. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard, perused the records.
10. Plaintiff has sought for relief of declaration and injunction, claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule property in terms of gift deed (Hibanama) executed by his brother Ramjansab, on 05.08.1980 which is produced and marked at Ex.P33. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his father Bombay -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR Immanna S/o: Badesab, who in turn had given it to his elder son Ramjansab who is brother of the plaintiff. That his brother was bachelor, who in turn had executed the gift deed at Ex.P33. Plaintiff has also produced revenue records at Ex.P1 to P33. Perusal of which indicate the name of his father Bombay Immanna S/o: Badesab being be reflected from the year 1968-69 up to the year 1980-
81. Thereafter, the name of one Ramjansab Basha is shown, whom the plaintiff claimed to be his brother. The name of said Ramjansab Basha is reflected from the year 1981-82. Thus, the revenue records consistently reflect the names of Bombay Immanna S/o: Badesab, the father of the plaintiff and thereafter his brother Ramjansab Basha. There is no rebuttal of this evidence of any nature whatsoever by the defendant.
11. Ex.P.33 is the gift deed by Hibanama in Urdu language, the translation of which is also produced at Ex.P34 has been executed by Ramjansab in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has taken note of these
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR material evidence and records and has opined that there is a presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, regarding correctness of the entries in RTC unless the same are rebutted and in the light of defendant not having filed a written statement or cross examined the witnesses or rebutting the said material evidence, the acceptability of the same cannot be doubted.
12. Further The First Appellate Court referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hafeeza Bibi and Others Vs. Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs and Others 2011 SCCR 529, has come to the conclusion that execution of an unregistered gift deed is permissible under the personal law governing the parties in question.
13. The contention of the defendant that he had no opportunity to either contest his case or rebut the evidence also cannot be countenanced inasmuch as records indicate that the defendant had appeared before the Trial Court through his counsel. The suit was filed on
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR 09.03.2012 and has been disposed on 20.06.2013. Defendant has not utilized opportunity as he has neither filed written statement nor has cross examined the witnesses. The suit has been dismissed by the Trial Court. Even in the appeal filed by the plaintiff in R.A.No.48/2014, defendant has appeared through the very same counsel. The said appeal has been filed on 18.07.2013 and it has been disposed of on 26.10.2018. Therefore, through for more than 5 years the appeal was pending before the First Appellate Court, defendant has not cared to take any steps either to prosecute or to rebut the case of the plaint.
14. Even in the present appeal which is filed and pending since 18.08.2022, till date defendant has made no effort to place his case. Therefore, the contention which is vehemently urged regarding defendant not having opportunity to defend his case cannot be countenanced.
15. Another aspect of the matter is that the present appeal is filed after lapse of 68 days along with an
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7311 RSA No. 200387 of 2022 HC-KAR application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Even in the affidavit accompanying the said application, there is no whisper of any nature whatsoever as to any right, title or interest, which the defendant allegedly has in the suit schedule property. Except stating that he was suffering from Covid-19 disease and that he learnt about the allowing of the appeal only when he received the notice in the execution petition, nothing is forthcoming. In view of the above, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration.
16. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is confirmed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:PK