This second appeal was dismissed as it is devoid of merits. The High Court held it could not reassess evidence under S. 100 CPC when lower courts correctly found the appellant failed to prove title due to inconsistent property boundaries.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:44988 RSA No. 268 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI G C SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O G.A. CHANDRESHERAKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT. R. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAMANGAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT NELAMANGALA-562121
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATA SHIVA REDDY P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/AT R.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAMANGAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT NELAMANGALA-562121
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2)
NC: 2023:KHC:44988 RSA No. 268 of 2016
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 28.4.15 PASSED IN RA NO.85/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 24.4.14 PASSED IN OS NO. 474/09 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC NELAMANGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the concurrent judgments rendered by both the Courts wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking the declaration that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties is dismissed by both the Courts.
NC: 2023:KHC:44988 RSA No. 268 of 2016
Plaintiff contends that the suit properties are their joint family ancestral properties. Plaintiff is tracing title through his grand father namely Annayyappa. It is the case of the plaintiffs that propositus Annayappa had two brothers namely Veerabasavaiah and Mahanthappa. The plaintiff claims that his grand father Annayappa had two sons namely G.A. Siddalingaiah and G.A.
Chandrashekaraiah and that he is the son of G.A. Chandrashekaraiah. The plaintiff further contended that the suit property bearing Kaneshumari Nos.71 and 72 were allotted to his father's share in the registered partition deed dated 6.2.1968. The plaintiff pleaded that
his father purchased Kaneshumari No.76 from one Gowramma through the registered sale deed. The plaintiff claims that these three properties were allotted to plaintiff's share in a subsequent partition deed dated 2.8.1981. The present suit is filed alleging that
NC: 2023:KHC:44988 RSA No. 268 of 2016
defendants who are strangers and not related to the plaintiff are interfering with his peaceful possession.
the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.
deed insofar as Khaneshumari No.76 is also not produced to substantiate that plaintiff's father purchased site No.76.
On these set of reasoning, the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit.
These concurrent findings are under challenge.
taken cognizance of the partition deed, they have concurrently held that plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of the property as per the boundaries indicated in the plaint. Both the Courts have found that the boundaries indicated in the plaint and the one indicated in the partition deed are totally different. Both the Courts have also drawn an adverse inference as the plaintiff has failed to place on record the subsequent partition deed dated 2.8.1981 based on which the plaintiff is asserting title.
NC: 2023:KHC:44988 RSA No. 268 of 2016
boundaries as indicated in the plaint. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can reassess evidence under S. 100 CPC when concurrent findings disclos due lack of title.
Whether substantial question of law arises from dismissal of suit for failure to prove title boundaries.
If second appeal is devoid of merits based on appellate courts' confirmed findings.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri G C Somashekaraiyah
Sri G B Ganganarayappa
G.R. Nagaraj
Satchin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
