The Karnataka High Court has observed that while considering the suit for the relief of declaration, only on the basis of admission, the Court cannot grant the relief of declaration. While seeking the relief of declaration, there must be a title deed when the ownership is claimed.

In that context, the Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that, "It has to be noted that while considering the suit for the relief of declaration, only on the basis of admission, the Court cannot grant the relief of declaration. While seeking the relief of declaration, there must be a title deed when the ownership is claimed."

Two appeals were filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.198/1994 and O.S.No.202/1995, which were confirmed in R.A.No.20/2006 and R.A.No.21/2006 respectively. The suits involved issues of declaration and injunction over land disputes in Avaragolla village, Davanagere Taluk.

In O.S.No.198/1994, the plaintiff sought a declaration of title and an injunction over 8 acres and 12 guntas of land, claiming lawful possession. The defendants contended the land originally belonged to 'Igalu Samastharu,' and the plaintiffs had no title. The Trial Court framed several issues, including whether the plaintiff proved its title and lawful possession and whether the defendants proved their claim.

In O.S.No.202/1995, the plaintiff claimed ownership of a 40x80 site and alleged the defendants were interfering with their possession. The defendants argued they had perfected their title by adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court framed issues regarding the plaintiff’s title, interference by the defendants, adverse possession, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the limitation period.

Both suits were clubbed together as the parties were the same. The plaintiffs presented evidence through eight witnesses and several exhibits, while the defendants produced five witnesses and numerous exhibits. The Trial Court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

The defendants appealed the decision, and the Appellate Court re-evaluated the evidence, reaffirming the plaintiffs’ ownership of the disputed properties and dismissing the defendants' claims.

The defendants then filed second appeals, arguing that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in their judgments. They contended the land belonged to the 'Paldar Patel’s' family, supported by a registered mortgage deed and other documents, which were not adequately considered by the lower courts. They also argued that the revenue records were insufficient to establish the plaintiffs' title.

The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the basis of the Trial Court’s judgment and the adequacy of revenue entries in proving title. The appellants argued that both Courts had wrongly granted the relief of declaration and injunction without proper title deeds and relied solely on revenue entries, which contravened the Registration Act.

"No doubt, Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code, it has to be noted that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admission to be proved otherwise than by such admission. The proviso to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that facts admitted need not be proved. Reading all these provisions together, it is manifest that the Court is not bound to grant the declarations prayed for, even though the facts alleged in the plaint, may have been admitted. The Court has to insist upon the burden of the issue being fully discharged, and if the Court, in pursuance of the terms of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, decides, in a given case, to insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts, the Court could not be said to have exceeded its judicial powers.", the court noted.

It was observed by the High Court that, "both the Courts have committed an error in declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property without the document of title in favour of the plaintiff just on the basis of entries found in the revenue records and the same is in contravention of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and law is settled by the Apex Court that based on the revenue entries, there cannot be any decree and entries found in revenue records will not create any title."

In light of the same, it was observed that both the Courts committed an error in declaring that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property.

Cause Title: Patel Veerappaiah & Ors. vs Sriman Maharaja Niranjana Jagadguru

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice HP SandeshProperty dispute

Ananya Soni