Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1580 (KAR)

Rukmanna v. Prabhurao

2022-12-13

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the Appellate Court, wherein the plaintiffs suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of 9 acres 2 guntas and consequently, the injunction is granted thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession. 2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The subject matter of the suit is the land bearing Sy. No.75/1, which was totally measuring 18 acres 4. guntas. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and the defendants belonged to the same family. The present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration of title based on oral partition effected in the year 1954-55. The plaintiffs contended that the entire extent of the land measures 18 acres 4 guntas and there was a partition between the plaintiffs ancestors and defendants ancestors in the year 1954-55. Pursuant to the partition, the same was reported to the Revenue Authorities and plaintiffs ancestors name was duly mutated to an extent of 9 acres 2 guntas and the defendants ancestors name was mutated to an extent of 9 acres 2 guntas. The present suit is filed alleging that the defendants are asserting title in excess of their legitimate share in the suit land, which is 9 acres 2 guntas and hence, the present suit. 4. The plaintiffs and defendants have lead in oral and documentary evidence in support their respective claims. 5. The Trial Court having examined the oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and decreed the suit declaring that plaintiffs are owners of 7 acres 25 guntas in the land bearing Sy. No.75 of Malagatti Village. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Appellate Court taking note of the revenue records found that plaintiffs names were found in the revenue records to an extent of 9 acres 2 guntas from the year 1964-1969. The Appellate Court has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Appellate Court taking note of the revenue records found that plaintiffs names were found in the revenue records to an extent of 9 acres 2 guntas from the year 1964-1969. The Appellate Court was of the view that in the year 1969, in the absence of any mutation, the extent of land is changed. This alteration in extent according to the Appellate Court does not create title in favour of the defendants in excess of 9 acres 2 guntas. Therefore, the Appellate Court proceeded to allow the appeal and suit was decreed in entirety declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners to an extent of 9 acres 2 guntas in Sy. No.75. These divergent findings are under challenge. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the defendants and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit land bearing Sy. No.75 measuring 18 acres 4 guntas is admittedly ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants. It is also not in dispute that both families have half share in entire extent, which works out to 9 acres 2 guntas. Though both Courts have held that the partition is not proved, however, the Appellate Court found that plaintiffs names are appearing to an extent of 9 acres 2 guntas from the year 1954-1959. The extent in respect of the land held by defendants is shown as 10 acres 29 guntas and plaintiff's extent is shown as 7 acres 25 guntas. 9. As rightly held by the Appellate Court that the extent is altered in the revenue records in absence of mutation. If plaintiffs name was duly found in the revenue records and if the extent was shown as 9 acres 2 guntas from 15/4/1969, the alteration in extent in absence of mutation and acquisition of right under registered documents by defendants is of no consequences. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in denying the relief of declaration in faovur of the plaintiffs to an extent of 9 acres 2 guntas. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Court is based on legal evidence lead in by the plaintiffs in absence of rebuttal evidence. The defendants have not substantiated their claim how they have acquired title in excess of 9 acres 2 guntas. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Court is based on legal evidence lead in by the plaintiffs in absence of rebuttal evidence. The defendants have not substantiated their claim how they have acquired title in excess of 9 acres 2 guntas. Therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in granting relief of declaration of title and consequently, perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit land measuring 9 acres 2 guntas. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.