SHAMARAYA S/O LATE SHARNU MADAR vs SUJATA W/O AMRUTH MALAGI

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH


TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200301 OF 2015

(DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SHAMARAYA S/O LATE SHARNU MADAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOLEWAD, TQ, & DIST. KALABURAGI
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI DESHPANDE G.V. AND
SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SUJATA W/O AMRUTH MALAGI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VILLAGE BOLEWAD,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585104.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.51/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM AT KALABURAGI CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 30.08.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.348/2010 ON
THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GULBARGA,
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100
CPC. THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
UNDER APPEAL ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH.










Digitally signed by
B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant
challenging the judgment and decree dated
27.07.2015 passed in R.A. No.51 of 2014 by the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Kalaburagi, (for short, ‘ the First Appellate Court ’)
and confirming the judgment and decree dated
30.08.2014 passed in O.S. No.348 of 2010 by the
learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division) and JMFC, Kalaburagi (for short, ‘ the Trial
Court ’).
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on

their ranking before the Trial Court: the appellant
was the plaintiff and the respondent was the
defendant.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and
consequential relief of injunction. It is the case of
the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was an
inam land belonging to his uncle. His uncle was the
owner and possessor of the suit property. He had
given the suit property to the plaintiff and the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property
as an owner. The defendant tried to interfere with
the peaceful possession and enhancement of the
plaintiff over the suit property. Hence, a cause of
action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for
declaration of title and injunction.
4. The defendant filed a written statement denying that
the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit
schedule property. It is contended that the suit filed
by the plaintiff for declaration of title based on
revenue records is not maintainable. It is contended
that the name of the defendant is entered in the
revenue records and the defendant is in possession

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


of the suit schedule property and prays to dismiss
the suit.
5. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the
parties, framed the following issues, and additional
issue for its consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves his
lawful title over the suit property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that
the defendant in collusion with the
revenue authority got entered his
name in ROR of suit land?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for
suit reliefs as sought for?
4) What order or decree?
Addl.Issue :
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he
is in possession of the suit land?
6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined
himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and
3 and marked 18 documents, as Exhibits P1 to P18.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


7. In rebuttal, the defendant, examined herself as DW1
and examined one witness as DW2 and marked 9
documents as Exhibits D1 to D9.
8. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides and
assessing the verbal and documentary evidence,
answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1
in Negative; and issue No.4 as per final order, and
the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment
dated 30.08.2014.
9. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree
passed in O.S. No.348 of 2010, preferred an appeal
in R. A. No. 51 of 2014 before the First Appellate
Court.
10. The First Appellate Court, after hearing both parties,
framed the following points for its determination:
1. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff
proves that he is lawful owner and

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


in possession of suit schedule
properties?
2. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff
further proves that the defendant in
collusion with the revenue authority
got entered her name in RTC of suit
lands?
3. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff
further proves the alleged
interference by the defendant in
respect of the suit lands?
4. Whether the findings given by the
lower court on all the issues are
perverse, capricious, arbitrary and
based without proper appreciation
of the evidence which warrants any
interference of this Appellate Court?
5. What order?
11. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the
entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 to 4
in Negative; point No.5, as per final order, and the
appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide
Judgment dated 27.07.2015.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


12. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments
and decrees, has filed this regular second appeal.
13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant.
14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of
the suit schedule property. He submits that the suit
land is an inam land and the land was granted in
favour of the uncle of the plaintiff and he has
transferred the suit schedule property in favour of
the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property and the defendant has no right,
title or interest over the property, as such, both the
Courts below have committed an error in passing the
impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the appeal.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant
submits that the plaintiff has filed a suit for

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


declaration of title and perpetual injunction. He
submits that the plaintiff has failed to establish his
title over the suit schedule property. He submits that
merely on the basis of revenue records, title could
not be conferred on the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff
having failed to claim the relief of declaration of title,
the suit filed by him based on revenue records is not
maintainable. Hence, both the Courts below have
concurrently recorded finding of facts against the
plaintiff observing that the plaintiff has failed to
prove the title over the suit schedule property. He
submits that the impugned judgment passed by the
Courts below are just and proper and do not call for
any interference at the hands of this Court and prays
to dismiss the appeal.
16. This Court, vide order dated 19.09.2019 admitted
the appeal to consider the following Substantial
Question of Law:

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


“Whether the respondent /
defendant has proved the
pre-existing interest in the
suit schedule with the right
of partition?”
Reg. Substantial Question of Law :
17. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title on the
ground that the suit land is an inam land and was
granted in favour of his uncle and, the uncle has
given the said property to the plaintiff, pursuant to
which, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit
schedule property and the defendant tried to
interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
18. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined
himself as PW1 and reiterated the plaint averments
in the examination-in-chief and produced the
documents: Exhibits P1 to P14 are the RTC extracts
which disclose the name of the plaintiff as the owner
in possession of the suit schedule property; Exhibits

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


P15 and 16 are the mutation register extracts;
Exhibits P17 and 18 are the pedigree.
19. The plaintiff also led the evidence of two witnesses,
who deposed on par with the evidence of PW1.
20. In rebuttal, the defendant examined herself as DW1
and she has deposed that the plaintiff is neither the
owner nor in possession of the suit schedule
property. She deposed that the plaintiff having
colluded with the revenue authorities got entered his
name in the revenue records. Hence, prays to
dismiss the suit.
21. From the perusal of the records, it clearly discloses
that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title
and permanent injunction. At the outset, it has to be
noted here that the plaintiff has not produced any
title deeds to establish ownership over the suit
property. The plaintiff has only contended that the
Government had granted the suit land in favour of

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


his uncle and his uncle has transferred the property
in the name of the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff has not
produced any records to show that the land was
granted in favour of his uncle and also has not stated
the mode of transfer.
22. In the absence of a title deeds and Grant Certificate,
merely on the basis of the revenue entries in the
Record of Rights, it does not confer any title over the
plaintiff. The revenue entries are only meant for the
purpose of realizing the tax by the revenue
authorities. The plaintiff, except producing the
revenue records, has not produced the title deeds.
23. It is settled law that a declaration of title based on
the revenue entries cannot be granted, in view of the
exposition of law laid down by this Court in the case
of Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others v.
1
Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others ,

1
(2007) 3 SCC 565 : ILR 2008 Kant. 1170

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


wherein it has been held that the revenue records do
not form a document of title. It merely raises a
presumption of possession. The plaintiff has failed to
produce the grant certificate to prove his uncle was
the owner of the suit schedule property and his uncle
has transferred the suit schedule property in favour
of the plaintiff. The suit is one for declaration of title.
The plaintiff must establish his case independently.
The plaintiff cannot depend on the weakness of the
defendant.
24. The said view is supported by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India
and others v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing
2
Society Limited and others .
25. As the defendant has not made any counter-claim in
the suit, hence, the question of considering that the
defendant having a pre-existing interest in the suit

2
(2014) 2 SCC 269

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


schedule property with a right of partition does not
arise for consideration in this regular second appeal.
26. In view of the above discussion, the substantial
question of law does not arise for consideration and
is answered accordingly.
27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Regular Second Appeal is
dismissed .
(ii) The impugned judgment and
decree dated 27.07.2015 passed
in R.A. No.51 of 2014 by the
learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Kalaburagi, and
the judgment and decree dated
30.08.2014 passed in O.S.
No.348 of 2010 by the learned
Second Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division) and JMFC,
Kalaburagi are hereby
confirmed ;

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11471
RSA No. 200301 of 2015


CNR: KAHC030027972015


(iii) No order as to costs;


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE



RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
Ct:pk