Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 369
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO (s). 3688/2024
NAGANNA (DEAD) BY LRS./
SMT. DEVAMMA & ORS. Appellant(s)……
VERSUS
SIDDARAMEGOWDA (SINCE DECEASED)
BY LRS. & Ors. Respondent(s)…….
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J:-
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
RSA No. 856 of 2011, wherein the High Court allowed the Regular
Second Appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), J.M.F.C. and M.A.C.T in Regular Appeal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.03.20
13:41:15 IST
Reason:
No. 10 of 2009 on10.02.2011, which had affirmed the judgment and
1
decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C. in OS
No. 606 of 1999 on 12.04.2007.
2. For convenience and continuity, parties would be referred to with
reference to their rank in the original suit.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The brief facts are as follows:
3.1 The suit schedule vacant site and A house bearing Khata No. 71
of Chaluvearasinakoppalu village, Pandavapura taluk was in
possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s father Late Siddegowda till his
lifetime, which was allotted to him in a oral partition which took place
between Siddegowda and his brothers Kalegowda. However, the
khata in respect of the above continued in the name of Kalegowda,
brother of plaintiff’s father Siddegowda, who was managing the
properties. After the demise of the Siddegowda, the plaintiff allegedly
continued with the possession of the scheduled suit property.
3.2 At the instigation of the second defendant, the first defendant
began to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule site and tried to pluck tender coconuts from the
coconut tree raised and reared by the plaintiff on the suit site and
2
tried to disfigure the suit schedule property for which the plaintiff
filed a suit OS No. 259/1994 seeking permanent injunction against
the defendants.
3.3 It was stated by the plaintiff that the first defendant with the
support of the second defendant got the khata of the suit schedule
property transferred to his name and the khata was changed as 111
instead of 71. From the written statement filed by the first defendant,
the plaintiff became aware about a sale deed dated 03.03.1993 vide
which the first defendant purchased the suit property from second
defendant.
3.4 The plaintiff averred that the alleged sale in favour of defendant
no. 1 is illegal, void, fraud, and conferred no title either on the first
defendant or to the second defendant. It was stated that the
defendants were never in possession of the suit property and had
fraudulently entered their names in the khata extract. The plaintiff
submitted that he was the true owner of the property and that the
defendant had forcefully taken over possession of the suit property.
3.5 The OS No. 259/1994 filed by the late Original Plaintiff was later
withdrawn by him on the basis of a compromise reached between the
parties.
3
3.6 On 15.09.1995, a Panchayat Pallu Patti was executed between
the Lakshmamma, wife of Kalegowda and the plaintiff on the basis of
which the plaintiff perfected his title over the subject property. Since
the defendant tried to interfere with the possession yet again, the
plaintiff was constrained to file another suit OS No. 606/1999 before
the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & J.M.F.C, Pandapura seeking
permanent injunction, cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.03.1993
and recovery of possession. The original Plaintiff, Naganna died
subsequent to the institution of the OS No. 606/1999 and thus, his
LRs were brought on record.
3.7 The Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C. vide judgment
dated 12.04.2007 decreed the suit by inter alia cancelling the alleged
sale deed dated 03.03.1993 as it was void, invalid and not binding
on the plaintiff. The defendant was thus restrained from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property by way of permanent injunction. The defendants were
directed to handover the possession of the suit property within the
period of three months.
4
3.8 Aggrieved by the same, Defendant No. 1 preferred Regular Appeal
No. 10/2009 before Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & J.F.M.C.,
Pandavpura. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated
10.02.2011 confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the Trial
Court and dismissed the appeal.
3.9 Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court,
the Defendant No. 1 filed second appeal RSA No. 856/2011 before
High Court of Karnataka. While hearing the second appeal, the High
Court had framed the following substantial question of law:
“Whether in the absence of the title deeds over the
immovable property bearing Khata No. 71 and
111, the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the
suit in favour of the plaintiffs and cancelling the
sale deed and directing delivery of possession?”
3.10 The High Court, vide judgment dated 13.02.2014, allowed the
second appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court. It was observed that the documents
relied upon by the plaintiff were not title deeds and were only
assessment extracts which do not suggest that they were the owners
of the scheduled property. There was no record to corroborate the
claim that there was an oral partition between the father Siddegowda
and Kalegowda . The High Court also observed that the palli pattu
5
dated 15.09.1995 does not mention Khata No. 71 or 111. Hence,
there is no conclusive proof about the ownership of the property.
3.11 Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the plaintiffs
are before us by way of filing a Special Leave Petition.
SUBMISSIONS
4.1 It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that
Respondent No. 2 i.e the seller was not connected with the property
owned by the Appellants and the sale deed executed in favour of the
Respondent No. 1 was without any lawful title. The material on
record reveals that there is an admission from Respondent No. 1 that
the property was looked after by Siddegowda and his brother
Kalegowda and that Respondent No. 2 was nowhere connected to the
suit schedule property. There is no record to indicate the change of
khata in favor of the second defendant. On the other hand, five
witnesses had deposed in favour of the Appellant.
4.2 The learned counsel further submitted that it is not necessary
for a person claiming injunction to prove his title to the suit property
and it is sufficient that he proves that he was in lawful possession of
the same and that he was dispossessed by a person who was not
6
having any title over the property. The law is clear that a suit for
injunction was maintainable, and the issue of title was not directly
and substantially involved in the suit. It is further stated that the
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 by entering into the question of facts and
travelled beyond the pleadings which was not subject matter of any
issue and has upset a well-reasoned judgement which was upheld by
the first appellate court.
4.3 Per contra, Ld. Senior counsel for the Respondent submitted
that the Appellant was never in possession of the property which was
owned by the Respondents. The burden of proof in a suit for title and
possession lies on the plaintiff and he/she is supposed to prove his
title to the suit property by clear evidence. Further, it is well settled
that revenue records do not confer any title. To buttress this
submission, the learned senior counsel had relied upon the
judgement of this court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs.
1
Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Ors .
1
2014 (2) SCC 269.
7
4.4 Ld. Senior counsel further submitted that the suit property is
in possession of Respondent No. 1 and therefore, it raises a strong
and clear presumption in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The
counsel also submitted that the Appellant had filed a suit against the
owner of the northern half of the property bearing No. 111 against
one Vedavathi which was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge
observing that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title to the said
property.
ANALYSIS
5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and
have gone through the material placed before this Court. While
admitting the regular second appeal, the High Court of Karnataka
formulated two substantial questions of law for consideration,
namely:
“(1) In the absence of title deeds over immovable
property bearing khata No.71 and khata No.111
whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing
the suit recording a finding that khata No.71 and
khata No.111 were one and the same and
cancelling the sale deed Ex.P6 conveying property
in khata No.111 in favour of the defendant and
directing delivery of possession of the said
immovable property to the plaintiff as well as
permanent injunction?
8
(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was
justified in confirming the aforesaid finding of the
Trial Court?”
6. It was vehemently submitted by learned senior counsel for the
respondents that the plaintiff miserably failed to produce any
material before the Trial Court to establish the factum of his
possession over the suit property. It was submitted that the
documents which were relied upon by the plaintiff were only the
extracts of the revenue record. The plaintiff before the Trial Court had
examined five witnesses apart from the revenue records.
7. While dealing with the documents, it was observed by the High
Court that Ex.P-2 is the demand register extract. It relates to
assessment No.71, the name of the owner is shown as Kalegowda,
S/o. Muddegowda. Except this, there are no details about the
property. Similarly, Ex.P-3 is also the demand register extract which
relates to assessment No. 62/1. The owner is shown as Naganna S/o.
Siddegowda and the measurements or boundaries of the property are
not mentioned. Ex.P-4 is the demand register extract for the year
1984-85. It relates to assessment Nos. 62/1 and 62/2. 62/1 stands
9
in the name of Naganna, S/o. Siddegowda. Measurements of the
property are not mentioned. However, the boundaries are given.
Ex.P-6 is the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant which
shows that the 2nd defendant had sold site No.111 of
Cheluvarasinakoppalu Village measuring East-West 45 ft. North-
South 35 ½ ft bounded on the East by Galli and house of
Andanigowda, West by house of Ningegowda, North by road and
South by Maduve and road. Ex. P-7 is the palu patti between
Lakshmamma, her children, Naganna and Andanigowda. It relates to
assessment No.62/1 and khatha No. 59/73. There is no mention of
khatha No.71 or 111 in Ex. P-7. Ex. P-8 is the mahazar. It shows that
the appellant had applied for grant of licence and it was resisted by
the plaintiff. It is mentioned in Ex. P8 that the plaintiff is in
possession of the suit schedule property. Exhibits P-9 to P 11 are the
endorsements stating that the documents asked by Smt. C. S.
Padmamma are not available.
8. On the critical assessment of these documents, the High Court
has placed on record its observation in following terms:
“The evidence on record does not prove that the
plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property.
The Courts below have failed to consider this. The
10
Trial Court should have considered all issues
separately, but has failed to do it. It is relevant to
note, there is serious dispute with regard to title of
the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not
sought for declaration. The Courts below were not
justified in holding that the plaintiff is owner of the
suit schedule property and he is entitled to
recovery possession. Admittedly, the 1st
defendant is in possession of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff cannot depend upon the
weakness of the 1st defendant's case. The plaintiff
must stand or fall on the strength of his own case.
In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove
that he is the owner of the suit schedule property.
Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court have erred while holding that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit schedule property and he is
entitled to recover possession and the sale deed
st
executed in favour of the 1 defendant i.e., the
appellant herein is invalid and void.”
9. At the cost of repetition, it can be stated that there was no
certainty of the scheduled property. Respondent No.1 in his written
submission had said that the plaintiff failed to produce any
documents of title. The plaintiff also failed to disclose the date or year
of the alleged “oral partition” in the family. It was also submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent that the so-called partition
deed placed on record at Ex.7 relates to entirely different property
and it is in no way related to the suit property. Another interesting
feature which is revealed after perusal of the written submission is
that the plaintiffs have filed another suit against the purchaser of
11
northern half the property bearing no.111, namely Vedavathi. The
said suit was numbered as OS No. 108 of 2003 in the Court of Civil
Judge at Pandavapura. The learned Civil Judge, Pandavapura by his
judgment and decree dated 2.3.2024 dismissed the suit filed by the
appellant - plaintiff against the said Vedavathi holding that the
appellant - plaintiff failed to prove his title to the said property. Thus,
in the cognate suit also it is held that the appellant-plaintiff has no
title to the northern half of the very same property. The copy of the
judgment and decree dated 02.03.2024 is also placed on record along
with the written submissions.
10. In the said suit, the learned judge framed the issue namely:
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is an
absolute property?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff deed. Dated owner of the
suit schedule proves that, the sale deed. dated
th
03.03.1993 executed by 20 defendant in favour of
the 1s defendant in respect of the suit schedule
property is void and not binding upon him ?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff entitled the relief sought in
the suit ?
(iv) What order or decree ?
11. The learned Trial Court on evaluation of the material placed on
record answered the issue in negative. In the said suit also the
documents in support of the submission of plaintiff were the extracts
12
of the assessment register. There was also no certainty of the suit
property. The Trial Court was pleased to observe that the plaintiff is
the owner of khatha No.71, later it was amended as khatha No.73
and it was stated that new khatha No. 111 has been assigned to said
khatha No.73. One who comes before the court with a declaration
that, he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, he must
plead the correct property number, extent and also boundaries before
the court with cogent and acceptable evidence. On critical
assessment of the material placed on record, the Trial Court arrived
at the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their
ownership over the scheduled property by adducing acceptable oral
and documentary evidence.
12. As stated above, the High Court in the present case found that
the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to showcase that he was
in possession of the property i.e. the revenue record extracts fall short
to establish the case of the plaintiff. There was also no certainty about
the suit of the property. On the contrary, there were ambiguity on the
suit property. The High Court, thus considering these aspects has
addressed the issue correctly and we are unable to find any error in
the reasoning as well as the conclusion drawn by the High Court.
13
13. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
15. No order as to costs.
........................................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2025.
14
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO (s). 3688/2024
NAGANNA (DEAD) BY LRS./
SMT. DEVAMMA & ORS. Appellant(s)……
VERSUS
SIDDARAMEGOWDA (SINCE DECEASED)
BY LRS. & Ors. Respondent(s)…….
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J:-
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
13.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
RSA No. 856 of 2011, wherein the High Court allowed the Regular
Second Appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), J.M.F.C. and M.A.C.T in Regular Appeal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.03.20
13:41:15 IST
Reason:
No. 10 of 2009 on10.02.2011, which had affirmed the judgment and
1
decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C. in OS
No. 606 of 1999 on 12.04.2007.
2. For convenience and continuity, parties would be referred to with
reference to their rank in the original suit.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The brief facts are as follows:
3.1 The suit schedule vacant site and A house bearing Khata No. 71
of Chaluvearasinakoppalu village, Pandavapura taluk was in
possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s father Late Siddegowda till his
lifetime, which was allotted to him in a oral partition which took place
between Siddegowda and his brothers Kalegowda. However, the
khata in respect of the above continued in the name of Kalegowda,
brother of plaintiff’s father Siddegowda, who was managing the
properties. After the demise of the Siddegowda, the plaintiff allegedly
continued with the possession of the scheduled suit property.
3.2 At the instigation of the second defendant, the first defendant
began to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule site and tried to pluck tender coconuts from the
coconut tree raised and reared by the plaintiff on the suit site and
2
tried to disfigure the suit schedule property for which the plaintiff
filed a suit OS No. 259/1994 seeking permanent injunction against
the defendants.
3.3 It was stated by the plaintiff that the first defendant with the
support of the second defendant got the khata of the suit schedule
property transferred to his name and the khata was changed as 111
instead of 71. From the written statement filed by the first defendant,
the plaintiff became aware about a sale deed dated 03.03.1993 vide
which the first defendant purchased the suit property from second
defendant.
3.4 The plaintiff averred that the alleged sale in favour of defendant
no. 1 is illegal, void, fraud, and conferred no title either on the first
defendant or to the second defendant. It was stated that the
defendants were never in possession of the suit property and had
fraudulently entered their names in the khata extract. The plaintiff
submitted that he was the true owner of the property and that the
defendant had forcefully taken over possession of the suit property.
3.5 The OS No. 259/1994 filed by the late Original Plaintiff was later
withdrawn by him on the basis of a compromise reached between the
parties.
3
3.6 On 15.09.1995, a Panchayat Pallu Patti was executed between
the Lakshmamma, wife of Kalegowda and the plaintiff on the basis of
which the plaintiff perfected his title over the subject property. Since
the defendant tried to interfere with the possession yet again, the
plaintiff was constrained to file another suit OS No. 606/1999 before
the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & J.M.F.C, Pandapura seeking
permanent injunction, cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.03.1993
and recovery of possession. The original Plaintiff, Naganna died
subsequent to the institution of the OS No. 606/1999 and thus, his
LRs were brought on record.
3.7 The Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C. vide judgment
dated 12.04.2007 decreed the suit by inter alia cancelling the alleged
sale deed dated 03.03.1993 as it was void, invalid and not binding
on the plaintiff. The defendant was thus restrained from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property by way of permanent injunction. The defendants were
directed to handover the possession of the suit property within the
period of three months.
4
3.8 Aggrieved by the same, Defendant No. 1 preferred Regular Appeal
No. 10/2009 before Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & J.F.M.C.,
Pandavpura. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated
10.02.2011 confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the Trial
Court and dismissed the appeal.
3.9 Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court,
the Defendant No. 1 filed second appeal RSA No. 856/2011 before
High Court of Karnataka. While hearing the second appeal, the High
Court had framed the following substantial question of law:
“Whether in the absence of the title deeds over the
immovable property bearing Khata No. 71 and
111, the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the
suit in favour of the plaintiffs and cancelling the
sale deed and directing delivery of possession?”
3.10 The High Court, vide judgment dated 13.02.2014, allowed the
second appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court. It was observed that the documents
relied upon by the plaintiff were not title deeds and were only
assessment extracts which do not suggest that they were the owners
of the scheduled property. There was no record to corroborate the
claim that there was an oral partition between the father Siddegowda
and Kalegowda . The High Court also observed that the palli pattu
5
dated 15.09.1995 does not mention Khata No. 71 or 111. Hence,
there is no conclusive proof about the ownership of the property.
3.11 Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the plaintiffs
are before us by way of filing a Special Leave Petition.
SUBMISSIONS
4.1 It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that
Respondent No. 2 i.e the seller was not connected with the property
owned by the Appellants and the sale deed executed in favour of the
Respondent No. 1 was without any lawful title. The material on
record reveals that there is an admission from Respondent No. 1 that
the property was looked after by Siddegowda and his brother
Kalegowda and that Respondent No. 2 was nowhere connected to the
suit schedule property. There is no record to indicate the change of
khata in favor of the second defendant. On the other hand, five
witnesses had deposed in favour of the Appellant.
4.2 The learned counsel further submitted that it is not necessary
for a person claiming injunction to prove his title to the suit property
and it is sufficient that he proves that he was in lawful possession of
the same and that he was dispossessed by a person who was not
6
having any title over the property. The law is clear that a suit for
injunction was maintainable, and the issue of title was not directly
and substantially involved in the suit. It is further stated that the
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 by entering into the question of facts and
travelled beyond the pleadings which was not subject matter of any
issue and has upset a well-reasoned judgement which was upheld by
the first appellate court.
4.3 Per contra, Ld. Senior counsel for the Respondent submitted
that the Appellant was never in possession of the property which was
owned by the Respondents. The burden of proof in a suit for title and
possession lies on the plaintiff and he/she is supposed to prove his
title to the suit property by clear evidence. Further, it is well settled
that revenue records do not confer any title. To buttress this
submission, the learned senior counsel had relied upon the
judgement of this court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs.
1
Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Ors .
1
2014 (2) SCC 269.
7
4.4 Ld. Senior counsel further submitted that the suit property is
in possession of Respondent No. 1 and therefore, it raises a strong
and clear presumption in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The
counsel also submitted that the Appellant had filed a suit against the
owner of the northern half of the property bearing No. 111 against
one Vedavathi which was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge
observing that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title to the said
property.
ANALYSIS
5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and
have gone through the material placed before this Court. While
admitting the regular second appeal, the High Court of Karnataka
formulated two substantial questions of law for consideration,
namely:
“(1) In the absence of title deeds over immovable
property bearing khata No.71 and khata No.111
whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing
the suit recording a finding that khata No.71 and
khata No.111 were one and the same and
cancelling the sale deed Ex.P6 conveying property
in khata No.111 in favour of the defendant and
directing delivery of possession of the said
immovable property to the plaintiff as well as
permanent injunction?
8
(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was
justified in confirming the aforesaid finding of the
Trial Court?”
6. It was vehemently submitted by learned senior counsel for the
respondents that the plaintiff miserably failed to produce any
material before the Trial Court to establish the factum of his
possession over the suit property. It was submitted that the
documents which were relied upon by the plaintiff were only the
extracts of the revenue record. The plaintiff before the Trial Court had
examined five witnesses apart from the revenue records.
7. While dealing with the documents, it was observed by the High
Court that Ex.P-2 is the demand register extract. It relates to
assessment No.71, the name of the owner is shown as Kalegowda,
S/o. Muddegowda. Except this, there are no details about the
property. Similarly, Ex.P-3 is also the demand register extract which
relates to assessment No. 62/1. The owner is shown as Naganna S/o.
Siddegowda and the measurements or boundaries of the property are
not mentioned. Ex.P-4 is the demand register extract for the year
1984-85. It relates to assessment Nos. 62/1 and 62/2. 62/1 stands
9
in the name of Naganna, S/o. Siddegowda. Measurements of the
property are not mentioned. However, the boundaries are given.
Ex.P-6 is the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant which
shows that the 2nd defendant had sold site No.111 of
Cheluvarasinakoppalu Village measuring East-West 45 ft. North-
South 35 ½ ft bounded on the East by Galli and house of
Andanigowda, West by house of Ningegowda, North by road and
South by Maduve and road. Ex. P-7 is the palu patti between
Lakshmamma, her children, Naganna and Andanigowda. It relates to
assessment No.62/1 and khatha No. 59/73. There is no mention of
khatha No.71 or 111 in Ex. P-7. Ex. P-8 is the mahazar. It shows that
the appellant had applied for grant of licence and it was resisted by
the plaintiff. It is mentioned in Ex. P8 that the plaintiff is in
possession of the suit schedule property. Exhibits P-9 to P 11 are the
endorsements stating that the documents asked by Smt. C. S.
Padmamma are not available.
8. On the critical assessment of these documents, the High Court
has placed on record its observation in following terms:
“The evidence on record does not prove that the
plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property.
The Courts below have failed to consider this. The
10
Trial Court should have considered all issues
separately, but has failed to do it. It is relevant to
note, there is serious dispute with regard to title of
the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not
sought for declaration. The Courts below were not
justified in holding that the plaintiff is owner of the
suit schedule property and he is entitled to
recovery possession. Admittedly, the 1st
defendant is in possession of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff cannot depend upon the
weakness of the 1st defendant's case. The plaintiff
must stand or fall on the strength of his own case.
In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove
that he is the owner of the suit schedule property.
Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court have erred while holding that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit schedule property and he is
entitled to recover possession and the sale deed
st
executed in favour of the 1 defendant i.e., the
appellant herein is invalid and void.”
9. At the cost of repetition, it can be stated that there was no
certainty of the scheduled property. Respondent No.1 in his written
submission had said that the plaintiff failed to produce any
documents of title. The plaintiff also failed to disclose the date or year
of the alleged “oral partition” in the family. It was also submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent that the so-called partition
deed placed on record at Ex.7 relates to entirely different property
and it is in no way related to the suit property. Another interesting
feature which is revealed after perusal of the written submission is
that the plaintiffs have filed another suit against the purchaser of
11
northern half the property bearing no.111, namely Vedavathi. The
said suit was numbered as OS No. 108 of 2003 in the Court of Civil
Judge at Pandavapura. The learned Civil Judge, Pandavapura by his
judgment and decree dated 2.3.2024 dismissed the suit filed by the
appellant - plaintiff against the said Vedavathi holding that the
appellant - plaintiff failed to prove his title to the said property. Thus,
in the cognate suit also it is held that the appellant-plaintiff has no
title to the northern half of the very same property. The copy of the
judgment and decree dated 02.03.2024 is also placed on record along
with the written submissions.
10. In the said suit, the learned judge framed the issue namely:
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is an
absolute property?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff deed. Dated owner of the
suit schedule proves that, the sale deed. dated
th
03.03.1993 executed by 20 defendant in favour of
the 1s defendant in respect of the suit schedule
property is void and not binding upon him ?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff entitled the relief sought in
the suit ?
(iv) What order or decree ?
11. The learned Trial Court on evaluation of the material placed on
record answered the issue in negative. In the said suit also the
documents in support of the submission of plaintiff were the extracts
12
of the assessment register. There was also no certainty of the suit
property. The Trial Court was pleased to observe that the plaintiff is
the owner of khatha No.71, later it was amended as khatha No.73
and it was stated that new khatha No. 111 has been assigned to said
khatha No.73. One who comes before the court with a declaration
that, he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, he must
plead the correct property number, extent and also boundaries before
the court with cogent and acceptable evidence. On critical
assessment of the material placed on record, the Trial Court arrived
at the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their
ownership over the scheduled property by adducing acceptable oral
and documentary evidence.
12. As stated above, the High Court in the present case found that
the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to showcase that he was
in possession of the property i.e. the revenue record extracts fall short
to establish the case of the plaintiff. There was also no certainty about
the suit of the property. On the contrary, there were ambiguity on the
suit property. The High Court, thus considering these aspects has
addressed the issue correctly and we are unable to find any error in
the reasoning as well as the conclusion drawn by the High Court.
13
13. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
15. No order as to costs.
........................................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2025.
14