Chikkamuniyamma vs R. Rangappa R. Rangappa Vs Chikkamuniyamma

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant in RSA Nos. 97 and 98/2011 has challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing his suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction and a decree of injunction in the suit in OS 217/1996 instituted by the respondent herein and dismissal of his appeals in RA Nos. 138 and 141/2008 by the First Appellate Court, whereas in the later appeal, in RSA 1209/2014, the appellant has challenged the refusal of the relief of declaration sought for by her, affirmed in an appeal in RA No. 115/2009 by the First Appellate Court.

The facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals are as under:

Parties will be referred by their names for the sake of convenience.

The appellant in RSA Nos. 97 and 98/2011 i.e., R. Rangappa instituted the suit in OS No. 672/1995 as against the respondent herein i.e., Chikkamuniyamma, whereas she instituted the suit in OS No. 217/1996 against R. Rangappa. Both the suits were for the relief of declaration and injunction relating to their title over the suit properties in Sy. No. 42 measuring 6 acres 31 guntas and in Sy. No. 22 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas described in the schedule to the plaint. Under the sale deed dated 01.09.1967 Muniyamma and V Dasappa, the erstwhile owners of the suit, properties had acquired the title from its vendors. On 17.01.1972, the said Muniyamma and V Dasappa gifted the suit properties in favour of R. Rangappa who is the donee and the purpose of gift was to use the usufructs of suit properties for the development of ''Kodandaramaswamy Seva Samaja Bajane Mandira, Malur. R. Rangappa claims to be in possession of the suit properties from the date of gift till the date of institution of suit contending that Chikkamuniyamma fabricated certain documents, got changed the revenue records in her name.

Aggrieved by the entry of her name in the records, R. Rangappa preferred an appeal in RA No. 152/1995-96 to the Assistant Commissioner and the said appeal was pending on the date when R. Rangappa instituted the suit for declaration and injunction against Chikkamuniyamma.

Later, Chikkamuniyamma instituted the other suit contending that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties and that she has succeeded to the suit properties by virtue of inheritance and gift deed dated 24.06.1986 from Muniyamma and it was her contention that R. Rangappa had created a fictitious document by way of gift deed dated 17.01.1972 and that he does not have any right or title over the suit properties. Claiming obstruction over the possession of suit properties by both these parties, the aforesaid suits came to be instituted.

The Trial Court framed the issues in both the suits calling upon the parties to establish their title and possession over the suit properties and permitted the parties to produce their evidence by clubbing both the cases. Accordingly, R. Rangappa examined himself as PW 1 and 6 witnesses PWs. 2 to 7 and in their evidence documents Exs. P1 to P19 were marked. Venkataramanappa was examined as DW 1 on behalf of Chikkamuniyamma and in his evidence Exs. D1 to D61 were marked. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit instituted by R. Rangappa in OS No. 672/1995 and partly decreed the suit of Chikkamuniyamma granting the relief of injunction and by refusing the relief of declaration of her title. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of-the Trial Court, R. Rangappa preferred an appeal in RA Nos. 138 and 141/2008, whereas Chikkamuniyamma aggrieved by the refusal of relief of declaration filed RA 115/2009. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed all these appeals. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, R. Rangappa has preferred RSA Nos. 97 and 98/2011, whereas Chikkamuniyamma has preferred RSA No. 1209/2014.

The following substantial questions of law have been raised in RSA Nos. 97 and 98/2011:

1) When R. Rangappa claims to be in possession of the suit properties under the Gift Deed-Ex. P1 dated 17.01.1972, whether the Courts below were justified in rejecting the Gift Deed on the ground that the plaintiff is not competent to receive the gift and wrongly accepted the discrepancies relating to the earlier transactions?

2) Whether the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below in holding that the defendant-Chikkamuniyamma is in possession of the suit properties and succeeded to the properties on the basis of inheritance, is capricious and arbitrary?

3) On the basis of the answers on the aforesaid substantial questions of law, who could be held to be in possession of the suit properties?

Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties in all these appeals.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that Muniyamma and V Dasappa, the erstwhile owners of the suit properties belong to weavers community and they in their life time gifted the suit properties to R. Rangappa under the registered gift deed dated 17.01.1972 and since from this date, R. Rangappa has been in possession of the suit properties and utilizing the usufructs for the development of aforesaid "Bajane Mandira" and that the Courts below ignored the registered gift deed on minor discrepancies found in the gift deed and committed an error in rejecting the gift as fraudulent document. He submits that those minor discrepancies have no relevance so far as acquisition of title over the suit property by R. Rangappa from the erstwhile owners and the approach of Courts below in interpreting the gift deed is improper and erroneous. Furthermore, it is his submission that Chikkamuniyamma is the person who belong to ST community and has no relationship with the erstwhile owners Muniyamma or V Dasappa who belonged to weavers community and that the Courts below have relied upon the fictitious material produced and committed an illegality in granting the decree of injunction by appreciating the evidence in arbitrary and capricious manner. Having taken this Court through all the evidence produced by the parties, it is the submission of the counsel that R. Rangappa has proved his title and the evidence adduced is sufficient to grant the relief of declaration and injunction.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the suit properties were inherited on the death of Muniyamma, the erstwhile owner and that the said Muniyamma from whom Chikkamuniyamma succeeded to the property was not the person belonging to the weavers community and as the gift deed sought to be relied upon by R. Rangappa did not convey any title, in view of the material discrepancy in the gift deed and, as the said gift deed does not pertain to the suit property, the question of granting the relief of possession to R. Rangappa, does not arise. He submits that Chikkamuniyamma has inherited the suit property from her mother, Muniyamma and though the Trial Court was right in granting the decree of injunction committed an error in refusing the relief of declaration. Referring to all the evidence adduced by the parties, he submits that so far as grant of injunction is concerned, there is proper appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts below and the conclusion arrived at are valid. He submits that the Courts below committed an error in refusing the relief of declaration though rightly granted a decree of injunction. He submits to allow RSA No. 1209/2014 and to dismiss the other two appeals of R. Rangappa.

Chikkamuniyamma who claims to be the daughter of Muniyamma initially in the plaint had denied the execution of sale deed dated 01.09.1967 registered at document No. 1825/1967-68 and document No. 1826/1967-68 through which Muniyamma and V Dasappa, the erstwhile owners of the suit property had acquired title to the suit property. But later, she sought for an amendment and admitted the acquisition of title by Muniyamma and V Dasappa under the aforesaid two sale deeds. Therefore, it has to be said that under the aforesaid two sale deeds, the fact of acquisition of title by Muniyamma and V Dasappa is not disputed by both the parties and it is not necessary for the parties to prove the due execution and attestation of these two sale deeds dated 01.09.1967 bearing registration Nos. 1825-1826/1967-68 produced at Exs. P5 and P6. These two documents are the certified copies and the registration numbers are mentioned as 1825 of the year 1967-68 in Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 is having the registration No. 1826 of the year 1967-68.

So from these admitted and proved documents at Exs. P5 and P6, the purchaser of the properties is one Muniyamma, the wife of Padmashale Chittulu Varadappa. So ''this name is mentioned in Ex. P5-the sale deed and the sale consideration is Rs. 200/- and the sale deed has been executed by the erstwhile owners whereas Ex. P6 is also the sale deed dated 01.09.1967 executed in the name of V. Dasappa, son of Padmashale Chittulu Varadappa. So as could be seen from these two documents, the suit properties are purchased by the aforesaid Muniyamma, wife of Padmashale Chiltalu Varadappa and V. Dasappa, the son of Padmashale Chittulu Varadappa.

The aforesaid two persons acquired the title to the suit properties under these two sale deeds. Exs. P9 and 10 are the Index of lands relating to the suit properties, which would reveal the names of erstwhile owners who sold the suit properties to Muniyamma and V. Dasappa aforesaid.

In the aforesaid background, as there being no dispute relating to the title of Muniyamma, the wife of Padmashale Chiltalu Varadappa and V. Dasappa, the son of Padmashale Chittulu Varadappa, it is now for the Court to decide as to whether R. Rangappa has acquired title to the suit properties on the basis of gift deed dated 17.01.1972 or whether Chikkamuniyamma has acquired title to the suit properties either by way of inheritance or by way of gift.

So far as the gift in favour of Chikkamuniyamma is concerned, it is an unregistered document and therefore, there is no question of acquiring any title on the basis of the said gift. The only thing which will have to be considered is as to whether she has inherited this property from her parents and as to whether the aforesaid Muniyamma, the wife of Padmashale. Chiltalu Varadappa is her mother so that she can succeed to the property on her death.

Now, to consider the title of R. Rangappa under the gift deed dated 17.01.1972 produced by him at Ex. P1 the scrutiny of this deed would reveal that the description of the property under the gift deed is nothing but the property which is the subject matter of this litigation and this gift deed has been executed by Muniyamma, wife of Padmashale Chiltalu Varadappa and V. Dasappa, the son of Padmashale Chittulu Varadappa. The names of executors of this deed is the same and it is the one mentioned in the sale deeds at Exs. P5 and P6 dated 01.09.1967 in which the aforesaid Muniyamma and V. Dasappa acquired the title. So the persons who acquired the title under Exs. P5 and P6 are the same persons who have executed the gift deed Ex. P1 dated 17.01.1972.

This Gift Deed at Ex. P1 has been rejected by the Courts below on the discrepancy relating to the recital of the registration numbers of two Sale Deeds, which conveyed title to the donors. Though the date of the Sale Deeds mentioned in the Gift Deed-Ex. P1 is 01.09.1967, the registration numbers of two Sale Deeds are mentioned as 1925 and 1926 respectively. Therefore, it is the contention of Chikkamuniyamma that the two Sale''; Deeds at Exs. P5 and 6 dated 01.09.1967 were having their registration numbers as 1825 and 1826 respectively and the mention of registration numbers 1925 and 1926 in the Gift Deed denotes a circumstance, which would invalidate the Gift Deed. But, so far as the remaining contents of the deeds are concerned, the persons in whose favour the Sale Deeds were executed are the persons, who executed the Gift Deed-Ex. P1. The date 01.09.1967 of Exs. P5 and 6 is also mentioned in the Gift Deed. The description of the properties under the Sale Deeds is same as described under the Gift Deed at Ex. P1.

Except the registration numbers of the Sale Deeds instead of mentioning as 1825 and 1826 respectively, it is mentioned as 1925 and 1926 and therefore, the counsel for Chikkamuniyamma contends that there is no transfer of title under the Gift Deed at Ex. P1.

In my opinion, this discrepancy so far as the registration numbers of the Sale Deeds, which are wrongly mentioned as 1925 and 1926, is not a circumstance which could stop the transfer of the title. When the person, who owns the properties under the Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1967 executed the Gift Deed, mere wrong mentioning of registration numbers of the title deeds is a minor discrepancy and the fact that it was not rectified subsequently is not a ground to reject the Gift Deed.

In the evidence, Chikkamuniyamma has got produced two documents-Exs. D14 and 15. Ex. D14 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed with registration No. 1925/67-68. The date of this Sale Deed is 14.09.1967. The person who executed this Sale Deed, the person who purchased the properties and also the properties mentioned therein have no nexus with either the parties to these suits or the properties in question or the subject matter. Ex. D15 with the registration number 1926/67-68 is the certified copy of the mortgage transaction dated 15.09.1967. The mortgager, mortgagee and the mortgaged properties are different and also the parties. So, from these two documents, it is very much confirmed that the registration numbers 1925 and 1926 relating to Exs. D14 and 15 respectively is wrongly mentioned in the Gift Deed dated 17.01.1972 under Ex. P1. So, by producing these two documents viz., Exs. D14 and 15, Chikkamuniyamma has clarified that mention of the registration numbers as 1925 and 1926 in the Gift Deed-Ex. P1 are wrong and that it ought to have been 1825 and 1826 as mentioned in Exs. P5 and 6 respectively, the Sale Deeds which conferred the title to the donors i.e., Muniyamma and V. Dasappa.

When both R. Rangappa and Chikkamuniyamma have claimed title to the suit properties, it is the duty of the Court to find out as to the person who has a better title amongst the two. In this context, now, let us see the evidence produced by Chikkamuniyamma through her witness so far as her title to the suit properties on the basis of the alleged inheritance.

Chikkamuniyamma claims to be the daughter of Muniyamma, the erstwhile owner of the suit properties and to substantiate this contention, it is relevant to mention here that she has not entered the witness box. The only witness examined on her behalf is D.W. 1-Venkataramanappa and in his evidence, he states his name in the affidavit as Venkataramanappa @ Dasappa, S/o. late Dasappa, Aged 56 years, C/o. Sri. Venkataramanappa, near Sri Rama Temple, Subbanapalya, Banaswadi Main Road, Maruthi Sevanagar Post, Bangalore-33.

D.W. 1 in the cross-examination states at the first instance that he acquired the suit properties from his mother and father through a Gift Deed. This admission is inconsistent with the plea in the written statement of Chikkamuniyamma. He further states that his father purchased the properties for his younger and elder sister and he was aged 12-13 years at the time of the transaction. He states that his father sold the property to him. It is relevant to note that under Ex. P6 when V. Dasappa purchased the property on 01.09.1967, he was major and the Sale Deed was in the name of V. Dasappa Further, he states that his father sold the property to him. So, at one stretch he speaks about a gift and then he states that there is a Sale Deed in his favour and that he was a minor at the time when his father purchased the property and this version of D.W. 1 clearly indicates that he is not telling the truth before the Court.

Again in the cross-examination, he states that the suit properties were standing in the name of his father and after his death, the katha was changed in the name of his wife. This is also an utter falsehood. That apart, in the Sale Deed at Ex. P5, the name of Muniyamma has been shown as wife of Padmashale Chiltalu Varadappa and the name of V. Dasappa under Exs. P6 has been shown as son of Padmashale Chittulu Varadappa. The caste is mentioned as "Padmashale" means a weaver community. The persons who purchased the property under Exs. P5 and 6 are the residents of Bangalore and D.W. 1 admits in the cross-examination that Muniyamma, the said mother of Chikkamuniyamma was the resident of Garigedanahalli village since from her birth till the date of the suit. That apart, D.W. 1 though states that property was gifted, he is not able to say the year in which it was gifted and further he states that the gift is in his name and in the name of his elder sister and this version is inconsistent with the plea put-forth in the pleadings of Chikkamuniyamma. Muniyamma, the alleged mother of Chikkamuniyamma is said to be the resident of Garigedanahalli and Kunthuru.

He also states that the husband''s name of Muniyamma is Chinnathayappa, but under Ex. P5, husband''s name of Muniyamma is mentioned as Padmashale Chiltalu Varadappa. The profession of D.W. 1 and Chikkamuniyamma is said to be agriculture, but that of Muniyamma and V. Dasappa, who purchased the properties under Exs. P5 and 6 is shown as weavers.

At one stretch, D.W. 1 states that the suit properties have been given to his younger and elder sister. He says that he does not know whether his father was putting signature or putting thumb impression and he denies the suggestion that Muniyamma and Dasappa, who acquired the title to the suit properties under Exs. P5 and 6 are the persons other than the mother of Chikkamuniyamma or D.W. 1-Venkataramanappa alias Dasappa.

That apart, there is no clarity in the evidence of D.W. 1. Even as regards his name, though D.W. 1 claims to be V. Dasappa, the person who purchased the property under Ex. P6, in the evidence D.W. 1 has also given his "alias" name as Venkataramanappa. Now, he states that Dasappa is his name and he is also called as Venkataramanappa. But, this name-Venkataramanappa does not find place in Ex. P6.

Another important aspect that is to be looked into is in relation to the community to which Muniyamma and V. Dasappa, who purchased the properties under Exs. P5 and 6 respectively belong to and that of Chikkamuniyamma and D.W. 1. Ex. D1 is the caste certificate of Chikkamuniyamma and it reveals that Chikkamuniyamma belong to "Nayaka" community. But, it is clear from Exs. P5 and 6 that the same Muniyamma and V. Dasappa, who purchased the properties belong to weaver community and therefore, the averments and the contention that Chikkamuniyamma is the daughter of said Muniyamma, who purchased the property under Ex. P5 cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, in the Sale Deed-Ex. P6, the father''s name of V. Dasappa is mentioned as Padmashale Chittulu Varadappa and D.W. 1 states his father''s name as late Dasappa. So, this version also goes contrary to what has been pleaded by Chikkamuniyamma in her pleadings. Therefore, it cannot be said that D.W. 1 is the same person, who purchased the property under Ex. P6.

From the fact that Chikkamuniyamma has not entered the witness box, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against her and the unreliable evidence of D.W. 1 cannot be accepted to prove that she is the daughter of Muniyamma, who purchased the property under Exs. P5.

The Gift Deed-Ex. P1 is a registered document. Under the provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, when a person acquires a right by virtue of a registered document is exempted from the obligation to report to the Prescribed Officer to make mutation of his name in pursuance of the registered deed. Though a contention has been raised to prove that the Gift Deed is a concocted document on the plea that the name of the donee is not entered in the records from the year 1972. When it was not the obligation of R. Rangappa, to submit a report of acquisition of the rights, the failure on his part to get his name entered into the records does not take away his right to the'' property. It is a wrong committed by the registering authorities, who were bound to submit a report to the revenue authorities informing the acquisition of right under a registered document. For their failure, the person who acquired the title cannot be punished.

Chikkamuniyamma has produced the record of rights of the suit properties at Ex. D25 to 56. For the year 1970-71, it was the name of Muniyamma and Dasappa which appeared in the revenue records and those names were continued till the year 1976-77. Thereafter, from the year 1977-78 though in the owner''s column the names of Muniyamma and Dasappa are continued, R. Rangappa''s name was entered in the cultivator''s column as the person in possession of the suit properties since then. So, from the years 1977-78 till the year 1993-94 it was the name of R. Rangappa in the cultivator''s column of the record of rights and it was discontinued on the basis of a report submitted by Chikkamuniyamma to enter her name in the records in pursuance of the Order of the revenue authorities. This entry in No. MR. 8/1988-89 dated 01.05.1994 was challenged by R. Rangappa in R.A. No. 152/1995-96 before the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar, and an Order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 16.10.2003 allowing the appeal of R. Rangappa, setting aside the mutation entry in the name of Chikkamuniyamma.

Chikkamuniyamma has not produced the death extract of Muniyamma and she has not produced any documents relating to the date on which Muniyamma died. So, in what context the name of Chikkamuniyamma was entered in the records under the mutation entry has not been clarified. That apart, incidentally, Chikkamuniyamma claimed the right to the suit properties on the basis of the unregistered Gift Deed, which has been admitted in the evidence for collateral purpose under Ex. D25. The scrutiny of this document would reveal that this document was executed in favour of Chikkamuniyamma, D/o. Muniyamma, who belongs to "Nayaka" community with the agricultural profession. But, as mentioned in Ex. P5, Muniyamma who acquired the title belongs to "Padmashale", a weaver community and was a resident of Bangalore and not of Upparalli village as mentioned in Ex. D25. That apart, so many other persons viz., Narayanamma, Venkataramanappa and Nagappa are the persons, who have joined in execution of this unregistered Gift Deed. Anyhow, the trial Court rejected this document on the ground that it is an unregistered document. To prove that this Chikkamuniyamma is the daughter of said Muniyamma, there is no evidence at all and the evidence of D.W. 1 is unreliable and there is utter falsehood in his evidence. D.W. 1 is not V. Dasappa, who purchased part of the suit properties under Ex. P6. It appears that Chikkamuniyamma falsely made a claim as the daughter of Muniyamma, wife of Padmashale Chiltalu Varadappa.

Once a conclusion is arrived at that Chikkamuniyamma is not the person, who could inherit the property of Muniyamma under Ex. P5 or the property of V. Dasappa under Ex. P6, they are utter strangers to the owners of the suit properties and also to the family of said Muniyamma. They cannot challenge the gift in favour of R. Rangappa. They have not placed on record any evidence to prove their possession over the suit properties. As they are strangers, the question of challenging the Gift Deed-Ex. P1 does not arise.

Chikkamuniyamma has produced some photographs. But, these photographs are insufficient to prove their possession or title to the suit properties or a right of inheritance. They have not examined any villagers or the persons who are acquainted with the family to prove their relationship with Muniyamma and V. Dasappa, who acquired the title under Exs. P5 and 6 respectively.

Except, unworthy evidence of D.W. 1, no material is placed on record. It appears that they filed false complaints against the plaintiff by claiming themselves to be the persons belonging to the schedule tribe community. In the absence of any evidence on record that they are successors and inherited the rights of Muniyamma, mere lodging complaints before the Police is not a circumstance to establish their right. R. Rangappa is examined himself as P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 4-Muniyappa has been discarded as he has not turned up for cross-examination. P.W. 2 is the attesting witness to the Sale Deeds-Exs. P5 and 6. P.Ws. 5 and 6 speak to the possession of the suit properties by R. Rangappa and P.W. 7-S.R. Venkatareddy is examined to prove that he purchased the trees over the suit properties for a sum of Rs. 43,000-00 from R. Rangappa. This evidence in the context of the aforesaid material is sufficient to prove that R. Rangappa is in possession of the suit properties.

The Courts below merely because of a wrong committed in mentioning the correct registration number of Exs. P5 and 6 as 1825 and 1826 as 1925 and 1926 respectively, have gone to the extent of holding that the Gift Deed-Ex. P1 is fraudulent document and in the absence of any evidence to prove the title of Chikkamuniyamma on the basis of her inheritance and in the absence of any evidence to prove the possession, have wrongly granted a decree of injunction. The scrutiny of all the reasons assigned by the Courts below in the context of the aforesaid evidence placed on record by the parties, I am of a clear opinion that Chikkamuniyamma has failed to establish her title and possession over the suit properties either by inheritance or by any other mode and in the circumstances, her suit will have to be dismissed and that of R. Rangappa has to be decreed.

The Courts below have misread the evidence and the appreciation is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, R.S.A. Nos. 97/2011 C/w. 98/2011 are concerned, I answer the substantial questions of law No. 1: in negative, No. 2: in affirmative and No. 3: holding that R. Rangappa is in possession of the suit properties.

So far as R.S.A. No. 1209/14 is concerned, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in view of the aforesaid findings.

R.S.A. No. 1209/2014 is dismissed and R.S.A. Nos. 97/2011 and 98/2011 are allowed. The Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The suit in O.S. No. 672/1995 is decreed as prayed for and the suit in O.S. No. 217/1996 is dismissed.