Y C Veerappa Vs Gangamma

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.57/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.148/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA.

¶31

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶38

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶39

The factual matrix of case of the plaintiffs before Trial Court is that defendants are the children of cousin brother of deceased husband of plaintiff No.1. The family properties have been divided and parties are in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Land bearing Sy.No.8/5 totally measuring 5 acres 10 guntas originally belonged to the family of plaintiffs and defendants, which later came to be divided into Sy.No.8/5A1, 8/5A2 and 8/5A3. 2 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.8/5A1 was fallen to the share of defendants No.1 and 1 acre 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.8/5A3 was fallen to the share of deceased husband of plaintiff No.1. Accordingly, names of the parties were entered in the revenue records of the properties fallen to their respective shares. After the death of husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2, namely

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Shivarudrappa, the plaintiffs have applied for change of khatha in their names. It is also their case that in the year 1963, defendants’ father has sold 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.8/5A1 and in the year 1965, he has sold 26 guntas in the same survey number in favour of one Kalasaiah S/o.Doddakalasaiah. The defendants being very well aware of the said sale transaction, they are interfering with plaintiffs’ possession over the suit property with an intention to grab the same. Hence plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.

¶43

It is the specific case of defendants in the written statement that suit property measuring 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.8/5A3 originally belonged to Channaveerappa @ Puttappa S/o. Veeregowda, who has executed a settlement deed in favour of defendants. It is stated that since the defendants were minors, the suit property was in possession of their father and after his death, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. This being the facts, the deceased husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2, namely Shivarudrappa colluding with revenue officials, has got entered the name in the revenue records of the suit

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

property as per M.R.No.4/2000-01. Immediately, defendants challenged the said mutation before the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan in R.A.No.376/2014-15. The plaintiffs are not having any manner of right, title or interest over suit property and the present suit is filed suppressing the material facts. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

¶48

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considering the material on record i.e., suit property bearing Sy.No.8/5A3 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas of land originally belonged to their grandfather namely Channaveerappa @ Puttappa and he has executed a registered settlement deed dated 11.09.1958 in favour of the defendants. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.13 that sale deeds dated 13.10.1963 marked as Ex.P2 and 18.12.1965 marked as Ex.P3, whereunder the defendants’ father has sold 1 acre 30 guntas and 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.8/5A1 in favour of one Kalasaiah, S/o. Doddakalasaiah. The revenue records also stands in the name of deceased Shivarudrappa and the same is

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

in respect of property bearing Sy.No.8/5A1. The certified copy of M.R.No.4/2000-01 marked as Ex.P6 shows that suit property measuring Sy.No.8/5A3 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas has fallen to the share of deceased Shivarudrappa. The defendants also examined two witnesses on their behalf as D.Ws.2 and 3 and particularly, the Trial Court has taken note of admission on the part of D.W.3, wherein he categorically admits that Sy.No.8/5A3 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas belongs to plaintiff No.1 and her children and they are cultivating the same and even schedule was read over to the witness and the witness categorically admits the same which is discussed in paragraph No.18. Hence, comes to the conclusion that Sy.No.8/5A3 was standing in the name of the plaintiffs and not in the name of defendants and defendants are not having any

¶52

claim over the property and it is also nobody’s case that plaintiffs are in possession of land bearing Sy.No.8/5A2. Even, the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.8/5A2 produced by the defendants marked as Ex.D1 is standing in the joint names of Channaveerappa @ Puttaswamaiah, S/o. Veerappa @ Appajigowda and defendant No.2 and his mother Y.C. Channamma. As such, Ex.D1-RTC and Ex.D19-sketch prepared

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

by Village Accountant are contradictory to each other and cannot be believed. Having considered the material on record, particularly, considering Ex.P6-M.R.No.4/2000-01 which indicates that suit property bearing Sy.No.8/5A3 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas has fallen to the share of Shivarudrappa i.e., deceased husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2. Further, RTC also stands in the name of deceased Shivarudrappa. Hence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’.

¶57

The First Appellate Court also in R.A.No.57/2019 having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, particularly considering the point for consideration, assessed both oral and documentary evidence and claim of the plaintiffs is in respect of Sy.No.8/5A3 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas, the First Appellate Court particularly in paragraph No.16, taken note of claim of the defendants and in order to substantiate the claim that Sy.No.8/5A3 belongs to the plaintiffs, nothing is placed on record. On the other hand, the document which plaintiffs rely upon particularly, Ex.D6, the same tallies with the said Sy.No.8/5A3 and the survey number referred in the

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

document Ex.D6 and the suit property are one and the same. In paragraph No.17 also, the First Appellate Court taken note that Ex.D19 is the sketch prepared by the surveyor with the assistance of Village Accountant upon the directions of the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan. Ex.D17 notice does bear the signature of Late Shivarudrappa and Y.C. Veerappa and there is no reference either in Exs.D18 and D19 about the presence of Shivarudrappa and Y.C. Veerappa and comes to the conclusion that defendants not attempted to get examine the author of the said documents or the panchas, whose names are reflected in Exs.D17 and D18 to prove the contents of Exs.D16 to D19 and particularly, taken note of admission of independent witness D.W.3, who categorically admits that particular survey number belongs to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are in possession. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶61

The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to ownership of the property. The counsel would

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

vehemently contend that the Courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit contrary to Sections 34 and 39 of Specific Relief Act and not justified in decreeing the suit ignoring the availability of alternative remedy in the light of Ex.D12 and committed an error in ignoring the contentions taken by the plaintiffs in Exs.D5 and D8.

¶66

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the material available on record, particularly the fact that suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.8/5A3, it is the specific contention that the same was allotted in favour of Shivarudrappa. It is also the specific contention that father of defendants’ had sold 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.8/5A1 and in the year 1965 and has also sold 26 guntas in the same survey number in favour of one Kalasaiah, S/o. Doddakalasaiah. Having considered the material available on record, though learned counsel for the appellants would contend that property allotted in favour of the plaintiffs is Sy.No.8/5A2 and in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record and their claim is that Sy.No.8/5A3 is allotted to their father. But, the fact is that property in Sy.No.8/5A1

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

was sold by their father long back in the year 1965 for which also, no explanation on the part of the appellants and the document is very clear that Sy.No.8/5A3 is in respect of the suit schedule property and defendants have not placed any documents to show that Sy.No.8/5 has been later re-numbered as Sy.No.8/5A3 i.e., suit schedule property and in order to substantiate the same, they have not placed any cogent material before the Court. The contention of the defendants is also taken note of in paragraph No.19 of the judgment of the Trial Court and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of Sy.No.8/5A2. Even the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.8/5A2 produced by the defendants marked as Ex.D1 is standing in the joint names of Channaveerappa @ Puttaswamaiah, S/o. Veerappa @ Appajigowda and defendant No.2 and his mother Y.C.Channamma and all these particulars were taken note of by the Trial Court. Even, both the Courts have taken note of admission on the part of D.W.3, who is an independent witness examined on behalf of the defendants, who also categorically admits that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and they are cultivating the same i.e., Sy.No.8/5A3

¶71

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:53223 RSA No. 1535 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

and after obtaining the said admission also, even read over the boundaries shown in the schedule and the witness admits the same. When all these materials are taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC and both oral and documentary evidence are considered and no perversity is found in the findings of both the Courts and question of fact and question of law are considered by both the Courts. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶74