H.PARVATI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff before the trial Court and sought for an order of declaration to declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is the claim of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is a widow belonging to a Schedule Caste. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the revenue authorities, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the Survey authorities, defendant No.5 is the City Corporation authority of Ballary. The claim made by the plaintiff that, she is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property bearing T.S. No.656/1, measuring 2.36.1 acre and T.S.No.656/2 measuring 5.8 cents of Ballary. The plaintiff acquired the same under the registered Gift Deed dtd. 30/10/2019 executed by her mother-in-law. It is the claim that, plaintiff's husband's grandfather Sri. Durgappa was the owner of the plaint schedule property. The suit property was standing in the name of Sri. Durgappa in the city survey records, Ballari and also in the city municipal records of Ballari as he had purchased the same from his vendors. The sale deed of Sri. Durgappa was misplaced and he died long back 48 years ago and his wife also died in the year 1982. The plaintiff's mother-in-law Smt. S.Nagamma had executed the registered gift deed and the plaintiff is the absolute owner and hence, inter alia he has sought for temporary injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said application was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement and disputed the very claim of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the property based on the Gift Deed and contend that, the very executant of the Gift Deed was not having any right. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any prima-facie case against the defendants and also it was the contention of the defendant that the suit schedule property was acquired according to the Government and they have not placed any notification or copy of award and no single piece of material is placed before the Court. It is contended that, in order to grab the property of the Government, the husband of the plaintiff by colluding with the officials tampered the property register maintained by city corporation and deleted the name of CMC and inserted the name of Sri. Durgappa. The trial Court after considering the material available on record, discussing in paragraph No.14, with regard to the claim of the plaintiff and in paragraph No.15 comes to the conclusion that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish her case, the weakness of the defendant cannot be taken as an advantage, non production of acquisition notification or award etc., will be considered only if the plaintiff is able to discharge her initial burden. Non production of the documents by the defendant cannot be considered in favour of the plaintiff. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish prima-facie case. The plaintiff has withheld the original deed of Sri. Durgappa, nothing has been placed to show that how the said property was acquired by Durgappa and hence, comes to the conclusion that prima- facie case has not been made out by the plaintiff and declined to grant any interim order.

(3.) Now the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that, the plaintiff has placed the document of Gift Deed and apart from that, the entries are made in the survey CTS No.MPR 27/2020.21, wherein, a noting was made with regard to till 18/2/1982, it was in the name of Corporation and statement was recorded subsequently and intimation slip prepared and the entries are made and also notice was given on 16/1/2021 and claimant also claims the document of Form No.21 and photographs are also produced in the appeal and the counsel based on these documents which are produced before this Court are additional documents, claims that plaintiff has got right in respect of the suit schedule property.