The Karnataka High Court has allowed a second appeal in Somayya Belchada v. Santhosh & Ors. (RSA 23/2021), setting aside the lower courts’ declaratory decree that favored the plaintiffs. The ruling emphasized that a suit for declaration alone is not maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed property.
Background
Aithu Belchada, the original landholder, was granted occupancy rights over land in Udyavara (Survey Nos. 13/32 and 13/48) through a Land Tribunal order in 1981. He later executed a registered partition deed in 1991 with his sisters and passed away intestate in 1998. His children (the plaintiffs) claimed title as legal heirs and filed a suit seeking only declaratory relief of ownership.
Santhosh, the defendant, contested this by producing a Will dated June 11, 1996, allegedly executed by Aithu in his favor. He also argued that he had been in exclusive possession of part of the land, had constructed a house on it, and was paying taxes.
Legal Dispute
The trial court (2015) and first appellate court (2020) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the Will invalid under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. However, both courts granted a mere declaration of title without addressing the question of possession.
Upon appeal, the High Court examined whether a declaratory suit without a plea for possession was maintainable. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, when a plaintiff is not in possession of the property, a claim for possession is mandatory along with the declaration of ownership.
The High Court noted that:
- The defendant was in exclusive possession, supported by his construction, mutation records, and tax payments.
- The plaintiffs failed to claim possession despite being aware of this.
- The proviso to Section 34 prevents granting a mere declaration in such circumstances.
Court’s Observation
Justice H.P. Sandesh ruled on June 13, 2025, that:
“When the plaintiffs are not in possession … they cannot seek for the relief of declaration without seeking the relief of possession … and suit for declaration simpliciter is not maintainable.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.
Key Takeaway
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that plaintiffs not in possession must seek recovery along with declaration of title. It aligns Karnataka High Court practice with recent Supreme Court rulings, particularly in Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi (2024), and strengthens the procedural discipline under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Case Title: Somayya Belchada v. Santhosh & Ors.
Case No.: RSA 23/2021
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Justice H.P. Sandesh
Date of Judgment: June 13, 2025
ALSO READ: Unauthorised Property Taxation in Karnataka: New Guidelines to Be Implemented by Mid-July