With Records Showing 12 Guntas, Karnataka HC Upholds Cousin’s Share And Buyer’s Title To The Remaining 24 Guntas

The plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction over 18 guntas in Survey No. 14/6, claiming that a 1988 family partition allotted him that extent.

The trial court dismissed the suit, but recorded that the plaintiff owned 18 guntas and that Defendant No. 2 lacked title to 24 guntas.

On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate court decreed the suit only for 12 guntas, set aside the trial court’s findings on the plaintiff’s asserted 18-gunta share and Defendant No. 2’s title, and held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, challenging the rejection of his claim to the additional six guntas and the setting aside of the finding against Defendant No. 2.

Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, an unregistered instrument effecting an immovable-property partition cannot be relied on to establish the parties’ shares; the first appellate court treated Ex.P.7 as an unregistered instrument recording an out-and-out partition, not a memorandum of an earlier partition.

Under Order XLI Rules 22 and 33 CPC, a respondent may, in the circumstances recognised by those provisions, challenge an adverse finding while supporting the decree even without filing a separate appeal or cross-objection; the High Court upheld the first appellate court’s application of this principle.

A second appeal under Section 100 CPC does not warrant interference absent a substantial question of law.

Ex.P.7 stated that the plaintiff was allotted 12 guntas, and the revenue records likewise reflected his interest as 12 guntas.

The plaintiff produced no other persuasive evidence to establish the additional six guntas; the boundaries and his assertion of possession did not overcome the documentary record.

The High Court therefore upheld the first appellate court’s finding that the plaintiff had proved title only to 12 guntas.

It also upheld the first appellate court’s decision to revisit the trial court’s adverse finding against Defendant No. 2 without a cross-objection, and accepted the registered sale deeds as supporting Defendant No. 2’s title to the remaining 24 guntas.

The findings disclosed no substantial question of law.

The first appellate court’s decree declaring the plaintiff owner of 12 guntas, recognising Defendant No. 2’s title to 24 guntas, and holding that the suit was not bad for non-joinder was left undisturbed; parties were directed to bear their own costs.