IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.181 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1. CHINNAGOVINDAPPA S/O LATE PERAMANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 2. SRINIVASA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. KESHIVAREDDY S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. RAMAREDDY S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST RESIDING OF BAGURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 515 (BY SRI.BOPANNA B., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND BHOGAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS:
1. RAMESHANNA S/O LATE BOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. LAKKAMMA S/O LATE BOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 3. MAHESHANNA S/O LATE BOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. MURTHAPPA S/O LATE BOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. RAJAPPA S/O LATE BOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. BHEEMAPPA S/O LATE BOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE AGRICULTURIST RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 6 ARE TEACHERS, ALL ARE RESIDING OF BOKIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOSADURGA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.189/206 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN.) AND JMFC, HOSADURGA.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The plaintiff - father of respondents has filed a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of defendant Nos.2 and 4 sold the property in the year 1974 by executing a registered sale deed. They did not approach the appropriate authorities for necessary changes in the revenue records. Finally, it seems in the year 2007-2008, they have approached the revenue authorities seeking to enter their names in the revenue records. The same has not been considered by the authorities concerned stating that there is a long delay in approaching the revenue authorities to enter their names in the revenue records. In view of refusal for entering their names in the revenue records, the circumstances warranted the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of the sale deed dated 18.10.1974 executed in favour of father of the respondents.
3. On serving of notice, the appellants have taken a ground that they are living as joint family. The trial Court after framing the issues and considering the same, has decreed the suit filed by the respondents. The same has been challenged by the defendants in First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after hearing, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Against which, this appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the Courts below have not considered Exs.D1 to D9 RTCs and Ex.D11 and Ex.D12- certified copy of the genealogical tree and certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18.10.1974.
5. The defendants have examined themselves as DWs.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 has not been properly examined and considered by the Courts below.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for appellants and perused the orders of the Courts below. It is seen that the respondents have acquired the title to the property by virtue of the sale deed 18.10.1974 executed by the father of defendants 2 and 3. But their names have not reflected in the revenue records since they have not approached the revenue authorities in time seeking the entry of their names in the revenue records. That does not mean that the respondents are not the owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. This defect is a curable defect. The defect in getting their names in the revenue records, does not confer title or possession in favour of the appellants in respect of the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and findings given by the Courts below are sound and proper. The appellants have not made out any grounds to interfere with the orders of the Court below. There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below. I am satisfied with the reasons given by the Courts below in passing the impugned order. I do not wish to issue notice to the respondents. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without issuing notice to the respondents.
Sd/- JUDGE LB