VERDICTUM.

IN

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)…….

JUDGMENT

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

No. 10 of 2009 on10.02.2011, which had affirmed the judgment and

1
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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.

Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Ors1.

1
2014 (2) SCC 269.

7
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

(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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
executed in favour of the 1st 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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
03.03.1993 executed by 20th 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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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
 VERDICTUM.IN

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