RAMAKRISHNAIAH v. HARIYAMMA

(BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR FOR SRI M.N.MADHUSUDAN, ADVOCATES) …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2019 PASSED IN RA No.31/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S.No.89/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, C/c KORATAGERE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Vivek B.R. advocate for Sri Kashyap N. Naik, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pawan Kumar, advocate for Sri M.N.Madhusudan, learned counsel respondent Nos.1 to 7.

#2. Present Second Appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, whose suit in O.S.No.89/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere, for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 16.04.2018 confirmed in R.A No.31/2018 dated 09.10.2019 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri.

#3. Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Courts below were justified dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff declaration and injunction on the ground that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR Saguvali Chit-Ex.P.1 is not legible when the said document was marked during the course of evidence and a perusal of the said document would go to show that the same is prima facie legible?

#4. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4.1 Plaintiff No.1 and one Hanumegowda are the sons of Puttanarasegowda. Said Hanumegowda died about 2 years prior to filing of the suit leaving behind plaintiff No.2 who is his wife and plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 who are his children.

4.2 It is further contended that land bearing Sy. No.15/1, 15/2 and 15/3 measuring 4 acres respectively and Sy.No.15/4 measuring 4 acres 22 guntas situated at Vengalammanahalli, Kolala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk and it was part of one single Sy.No.15 totally measuring 16 acres 11 guntas, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ belonged to the Government.

4.3 Puttanarasegowda became the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property by virtue of the Saguvali Chit said to have been issued by the Government on

15.10.1943. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR

4.4. Prior to the same, Government conducted auction sale in the year 1942 with respect to suit property wherein suit property was divided into four plots and put to auction.

4.5 Puttanarasegowda participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder. Accordingly, he had paid Rs.75/- for each plot. Confirming the said sale, Government said to have issued Saguvali Chit and said Puttanarasegowda thus became the absolute owner in possession of the property and revenue entries were mutated.

4.6 After the death of Puttanarasegowda, plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit property and there was change of revenue entries.

4.7 It is also contended in the plaint that father of the defendants by name Govindappa, S/o Puttanarasanna, and one Arasappa, S/o Puttanarasanna preferred an appeal against the transfer of revenue entries in RRT(A) No.13/2002-2003 which came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri, on 23.06.2003. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR

4.8 Against the said order, a Revision Petition was filed by the father of the defendants before the Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.44/2003-04 wherein the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry. The Assistant Commissioner again held fresh enquiry and on 21.02.2011, allowed the appeal filed by the father of the defendants and cancelled the revenue entries.

4.9 Based on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, defendants tried to interfere with the suit property about 15 days earlier to filing of the suit denying the right of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the suit property.

#5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto.

#6. The defendants admitted that suit schedule property was auctioned in the year 1942. But it was contended that Sy. No.15 Vengalammanahalli totally measuring 16 acres 22 guntas - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR was a gomala land and in the year 1942, the Government conducted public auction of the said land wherein grandfather defendants Puttanarasanna @ Puttanarasegowda, S/o Chikkahanumaiah, participated in the auction and his bid was accepted at the rate of Rs.32 and 8 annas along with phodi fee of Rs.32/-.

#7. Thereby it is the defendants' grandfather who became the auction purchaser of suit property by paying the amount to the Government on 17.09.1942 under receipt No.36.

#8. Since then, it is the father of the defendants viz., Puttanarasanna who is in enjoyment of the suit property and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

#9. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, both on facts and law, learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by considered judgment dated 16.04.2018 holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the probative value of Ex.P.1 as it is photocopy and illegible. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR

#10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed R.A.No.31/ 2018 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri.

#11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record both on facts and law, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs by considered judgment dated 09.10.2019.

#12. Being further aggrieved by the same, present appeal came to be preferred and appeal came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

#13. Sri Vivek B R, learned counsel for the appellants on behalf of Sri Kashyap N Nayak, contended that, Ex.P-1 having been marked in the evidence, the probative value thereof ought not to have been overlooked by both the Courts on the ground that Ex.P-1 is not a legible copy, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR

#14. Per contra, Sri Pawarn Kumar, advocate for Sri M.N. Madhusudan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the impugned judgment.

#15. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

#16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P-1 is a photocopy. Moreover, the relevant details in Ex.P-1 are not legible inasmuch as it is filled up in the ink in a printed form.

#17. Claim of the plaintiffs is that they are the persons who have purchased suit property in Sy.No.15 of Vengalammanahalli, Koratagere Taluk by paying Rs.75 per plot. To substantiate the same, no other material is placed on record.

#18. On the contrary, father of the defendants contended that he has participated in the auction and he has paid Rs.32 and 08 Annas for auction property and Rs.32/- as the phodi fee and he has produced the receipt for having paid the auction money and the phodi fee. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR

#19. While admitting the appeal, this Court raised the substantial question of law as referred to supra.

#20. Therefore, it is now the task of this Court to find out whether mere marking of a document would tantamount to proof of the document.

#21. In the case on hand, firstly Ex.P-1 is a photocopy. In the material placed on record, especially the evidence of the plaintiffs, there is no foundation laid as to absence of primary evidence for admitting the photocopy as secondary evidence.

#22. Nevertheless, since Ex.P.1 came to be marked in evidence, it is evident that marking of document cannot be questioned in subsequent proceedings. However, it is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that mere marking of the document would not per se tantamount to proof of that document.

#23. In this regard, this Court gainfully places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LIC of India and Another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in (2010)4 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR SCC 491. In the said decision, Their Lordships, in pargarph 25 have held as under: “We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law.”

#24. Applying the principles of enunciated in the aforesaid judgment to the facts and circumstances of the case, mere marking of Ex.P.1 in the evidence of the plaintiff would not amount to proof of said document, especially when Ex.P.1 is legible and photocopy.

#25. Therefore, dismissal of the suit by both the Courts on the ground that Ex.P.1 is illegible, needs no interference in this appeal.

#26. Hence, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission is answered against the appellant.

#27. Consequently, the following: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:36365 RSA No. 99 of 2020 HC-KAR ORDER Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77