Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah were trying to take advantage of the revenue records standing in their names for two years and had instituted the suit and they had not offered any explanation as to how the name of the 1st plaintiff came to be entered into RTC. The Appellate Court also took the view the entry of Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah in the revenue records were rebuttable in nature and since there was no explanation by Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah as to how the name of the 1st plaintiff had been entered in the revenue records, the mere occurrence of the name in the revenue records would not entitle them for a decree of injunction. The Appellate Court accordingly confirmed the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

21. Thus, merely because Bylappa denied Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah's title, that by itself would not amount to raising a cloud over the title of Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah and it would not be necessary for Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah to file a suit for declaration and a suit for injunction simpliciter may be sufficient. The Supreme Court has also stated that the Court should use its discretion carefully to identify the cases in which it would inquire into title and the cases where it would refer the plaintiff to seek the comprehensive declaratory suit. Thus, each case would have to be judged on its own facts to determine whether the parties are to be relegated to the remedy of filing a declaratory suit.

22. Since, a strong argument is advanced on behalf of the respondents that they had raised a serious cloud on the title of Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah and the suit could not have been entertained, at the very outset, it will have to be determined as to whether in the present case a serious cloud was indeed raised over the title of Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah.

23. The case of Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah's case, as stated above, was that the suit property belonged to Kalamma (the mother of Chennaiah and the grand-mother of the Ningaiah) who had acquired title by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 15.09.2021, executed in her favour by her brother Arasappa (father of the defendant, Bylappa). It was their further case that on the death of Kalamma, her husband Muddaiah and her two sons i.e., the 1st plaintiff and the father of the 2nd plaintiff, had succeeded to the property and on the death of Muddaiah, Kalamma's husband, the 1st plaintiff and the father of the 2nd plaintiff had succeeded to the said property. Thus, primarily, it would have to be seen whether Kalamma had title over the suit property and whether this title of hers was clear and free of doubt.

39. As could be seen from the said affidavit, the 1st plaintiff has stated that the property was sold to Bylappa. However, Bylappa himself did not set up a plea that he had purchased the property. The fact that the affidavit states that Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah had sold the suit property to Bylappa presupposes that Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah did possess title over the suit property. If Bylappa accepts the contents of the affidavit in which it has been stated he had purchased it, it would have been incumbent upon him to produce the registered instrument under which he acquired title from Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah. However, neither such a plea been raised nor any registered document produced to establish the title of Bylappa.