High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeals in Property Dispute, Upholds Trial Court's Partial Decree for Declaration, Injunction, and Partition. Appellants failed to prove title and possession over suit property, and trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence under Section 96 CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD

Admin

2026-05-18 22:12:52

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two Regular First Appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron, in O.S. No. 62/2015. The appellants, Smt. Sharanavva and Eshwara, were the plaintiffs in the suit, which sought declaration of title, permanent injunction, and partition of the suit property. The respondents, who are the defendants, are family members of the appellants. The trial court partly decreed the suit, granting some relief but not the full declaration and partition sought. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeals. The High Court heard the appeals and reserved judgment on 03.12.2025. The court noted that the appeals were filed under Section 96 CPC, which allows a first appeal on facts and law. The court examined the evidence and found that the appellants failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The trial court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, and there was no perversity or error of law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial court's partial decree. The court held that the appellants did not make out any ground for interference. The judgment was pronounced on 18.12.2025.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in a first appeal is the final court of fact and can reappreciate evidence, but will not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3)

B) Property Law - Declaration of Title and Partition - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove his/her title and possession over the suit property. In this case, the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the trial court's conclusion that they did not establish their claim was upheld. (Paras 4-6)

C) Injunction - Permanent Injunction - Possession - A decree for permanent injunction requires proof of possession. The trial court partly decreed the suit, and the appellants' challenge was dismissed as they could not show any error in the findings. (Paras 7-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants have made out a case for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and partition.

Final Decision

Both Regular First Appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 26.02.2021 passed in O.S. No. 62/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron, is upheld.

Law Points

Section 96 CPC
burden of proof
appreciation of evidence
partition suit
declaration of title
permanent injunction

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 11

Regular First Appeal No.100447/2023 C/W Regular First Appeal No.100509/2023

2025-12-18

Justice R. Devdas, Justice B. Muralidhara Pai

Sri. Chetan Munnoli

Smt. Sharanavva and Eshwara

Sharanagouda, Hanumagouda, Bhimanagouda, and Smt. Nimbavva

Nature of Litigation

Regular First Appeals against judgment and decree in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and partition.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought to set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and to obtain full declaration and partition of the suit property.

Filing Reason

The appellants were aggrieved by the partial decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 62/2015.

Previous Decisions

The trial court partly decreed the suit on 26.02.2021.

Issues

Whether the appellants have made out a case for interference with the trial court's judgment and decree? Whether the trial court's findings on title and possession are perverse or based on no evidence?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the trial court erred in partly decreeing the suit and that they were entitled to full declaration and partition. The respondents did not appear or contest the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi

In a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, the High Court can reappreciate evidence, but will not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to prove their title and possession, and the trial court's findings were proper.

Judgment Excerpts

These Regular First Appeals having been heard and reserved on 03.12.2025, coming on for 'Pronouncement of Judgment' This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2021 passed in O.S.No. 62/2015

Procedural History

The suit O.S. No. 62/2015 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron, which was partly decreed on 26.02.2021. Aggrieved, the appellants filed two Regular First Appeals under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The appeals were heard and reserved on 03.12.2025, and judgment was pronounced on 18.12.2025.