The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad has partially allowed a Regular First Appeal, setting aside a 2005 trial court judgment that had dismissed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The High Court declared the plaintiffs and other legal heirs as joint owners of the suit properties, holding that they had successfully proved their title and possession, while the defendants failed to produce an alleged 1946 sale deed.
Background of the Case
The civil dispute stems from an original suit (O.S. No. 33/2002, formerly O.S. No. 43/1997) filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kudligi. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title and a permanent injunction against the defendants over agricultural lands in Chirathagundu Village (Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the suit schedule).
The plaintiffs claimed that they inherited the properties from their ancestor, Patil Danappa, through his sons Doddamallappa and Sannamallappa. The trial court dismissed the suit on March 23, 2005, leading the plaintiffs to file the present Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 977 of 2005). Subsequently, some defendants who were identified as joint owners also filed a Cross-Objection (RFA Crob No. 100011 of 2025) seeking to set aside the trial court’s dismissal.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs’ Submissions: The plaintiffs argued that their ancestors were the original owners of the land, as evidenced by a resettlement register extract. They contended that Doddamallappa and Sannamallappa executed a registered mortgage deed on February 18, 1930, in favor of one Siddayyankote Sannabasappa for Rs. 500, but never alienated the property. They asserted that the revenue entries from 1968-1969 reflecting the name “Rajashekharappa” belonged to Plaintiff No. 3, not the father of Defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No. 1 illegally obtained a mutation order in 1997 by taking advantage of the identical name.
Defendants’ Submissions: Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 argued that Doddamallappa and Sannamallappa had executed a sale deed in 1946 in favor of Defendant No. 1’s great-grandmother’s husband (Goudar Sannabasanna). They asserted that the “Rajashekharappa” in the record of rights was Defendant No. 1’s father, and upon his death, Defendant No. 1 rightfully mutated the land into his own name in 1997 via an order by the Deputy Tahsildar. They contended that the plaintiffs had no possession or title over the suit properties.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court, presided over by Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, thoroughly examined the documentary evidence, including the 1930 mortgage deed (Ex.P9) and encumbrance certificates (Ex.P1) showing no subsequent sale transactions. Rebutting the defense’s claims, the Court noted that Defendant No. 1 failed to produce the alleged 1946 sale deed.
The Court observed: “Once mortgage always mortgage and mortgagee will not become owner of the mortgaged property. Defendant No.1 has not produced any sale deed for having his ancestors purchasing the suit properties.”
Regarding the burden of proof, the Court noted that “The case of the plaintiffs is more probable than the case of the defendant. In civil disputes, the standard of proof is a preponderance of probability.” Relying on voter lists, the Court concluded that the “Rajashekharappa” named in the revenue records was Plaintiff No. 3, as he was a resident of the village where the lands were located, whereas Defendant No. 1 resided in a different district.
The Court also discussed three Supreme Court precedents explicitly cited by the defense:
- Smriti Debbarma (dead) through Lrs Vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma: The Court acknowledged the principle that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish title. Quoting the precedent, the Court noted, “A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner.” The High Court found the plaintiffs had successfully discharged this burden.
- State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Ranga Reddy: Applying this precedent, the Court upheld the maintainability of the cross-objections filed by the co-owners who sought to support the plaintiffs’ claims.
- Vasantha (Dead) through Lrs Vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam: Addressing the defense’s argument that the suit was not maintainable for seeking a mere declaration without recovery of possession, the Court distinguished the current facts. It ruled, “When the plaintiffs have proved that they are in possession of the suit properties, there is no question of they seeking relief of recovery of possession.”
The Decision
The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree dated March 23, 2005, allowing the appeal and the cross-objections in part.
The Court decreed that Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4, Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, and other legal heirs of Doddamallappa and Sannamallappa are joint owners and in possession of the suit Item Nos. 2 and 3 properties. Furthermore, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, along with their legal representatives, from interfering with the plaintiffs’ joint possession of the suit properties.
Case Details
Case Title: Sri G. Thippeswamy & Ors. vs. Sri Basappa & Ors.
Case No.: Regular First Appeal No. 977 of 2005 (Dec-Inj) C/w RFA Cross Objection No. 100011 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
Date: May 14, 2026
