Even With No Written Defence, Mother-Son Pair Lose Wall Claim For Lack Of Title Deeds: Karnataka HC Upholds Dismissal

The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a wall adjoining their property was exclusively theirs and for a permanent injunction.

They relied on a hand-sketched map, a municipal assessment extract and property-tax receipts, but produced no title deed for the wall.

The defendants did not file a written statement or lead evidence. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs had not proved ownership; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decision and rejected applications for additional evidence and appointment of a Court Commissioner. The plaintiffs appealed under Section 100 CPC.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal concerns a substantial question of law.

In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a clear title and cannot obtain relief merely from weaknesses in the defendant’s case. The Court relied on Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269, for that principle.

A defendant’s failure to file a written statement does not require the court to decree the suit unless the plaintiff independently proves the claim.

The judgment also records applications under Order XLI Rule 27 and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC concerning additional evidence and a Court Commissioner, respectively.

The plaintiffs’ evidence—comprising the hand-sketched map, assessment extract and tax receipts—did not establish title to the wall, and they produced no title deed.

The defendants’ failure to contest the suit did not relieve the plaintiffs of their burden of proof.

Nor would a Court Commissioner’s inspection establish ownership where the plaintiffs had not produced evidence of title.

The High Court therefore found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below.

It confirmed the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree affirming dismissal of the suit; there was no order as to costs.