Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Heard Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

10. Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the plaintiffs have not established their title. According to the learned counsel, the documents produced in the form of various mortgage deeds between the years 1912 and 1942 could at best show the enjoyment of the property by the family of the vendor of the plaintiffs but the same would not establish title. In the absence of proof of title, there cannot be a decree for declaration of title.

11. The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Aralappa and others Vs.Jagannath and others reported in AIR 2007 KA 91. Further by Placing reliance upon Ex.B6, which is the sale deed dated 08.08.1906, Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that what was purchased by Sankarappa Gounder was only an extent of 4.52 acres in Survey No.57 and 58 out of 22.54 acres. In the absence of any evidence to show that the remaining extent in Survey No.57 and 58 belonged to the family or to Sankarappa Gounder, the plaintiffs who claimed under the descendants of Sankarappa Gounder cannot seek declaration of title.

18. Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned counsel would, however, attempt to restrict the ownership of the family only to the extent of 4.52 acres purchased under Ex.B6. Considering the fact that the sale is by brothers in favour of another brother of their share in the property, the possibility of the family owning some more extent cannot be ruled out.

19. The learned trial Judge rightly considered this aspect and as well the fact that the property has been dealt with by the family right through. Taking note of the fact that the revenue records are also in the name of the vendor of the plaintiffs, the learned trial Judge had concluded that the plaintiffs have established their title and the defendants have not established their right over the property.