Dismissed¶12

Smt. Sumangala v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025RSA/1736/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:46784; RSA No. 1736 of 2019 (DEC/INJ); Sumangala v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others; Justice Rajesh Rai K; sannad cancellation; Sarkari/Government Kharab Gundu Thopu; Khatha and Pahani mutation; Order LND(T) CR 3/8687 dated 19.09.1988; WP.No.24777/1991 findings unchallenged; declaration of title refused, injunction upheld on proved possession; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed; Ashraya Yojana grant recalled; Tumakuru.

What did the court decide?

None; the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. ¶12

Smt. Sumangala Vs the Chief Secretary — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title over the suit schedule property on the contention that the sannad issued in favour of Hanumaiah had not been cancelled, so that the subsequent sale deeds, including the sale deed in her favour, sustain. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

From the records, the sannad issued in favour of Hanumaiah and the subsequent sale deeds, including the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, are not seriously in dispute; by virtue of the sannad, revenue entries were mutated in the names of the subsequent purchasers and of the plaintiff.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's contention that the sannad had not been cancelled and that the sale deeds therefore sustain cannot be accepted, because the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.24777/1991 on the sannad, the nature of the land, the limited right of Hanumaiah and the subsequent sale deeds were never challenged.

¶11

Key takeaways

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on the plaintiff's possession was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court; the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and the relief of injunction was rightly granted by both Courts while rejecting the relief of declaration.ratio¶11
No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this second appeal; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC by the plaintiff against concurrent judgments: suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a 'Sarkari Kharab Gunduthopu' granted by sannad to K.Hanumaiah on 13.10.1968 and purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 22.10.1980. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the sannad and the mutation entries (Order LND(T) CR 3/8687 dated 19.09.1988); the plaintiff's WP.No.24777/1991 was only partly allowed by cancelling the mutation entries, and the Co-ordinate Bench's findings on the sannad, the nature of the land and Hanumaiah's limited right were never challenged. The Trial Court (OS No.244/2012, decree dated 04.08.2018) and the First Appellate Court (RA No.135/2018, decree dated 08.08.2019) refused declaration but protected the plaintiff's proved possession by granting injunction. Held: the unchallenged writ findings defeat the title claim; injunction was rightly granted; no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises — appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1736 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SUMANGALA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O. R. SHIVAKUMAR, R/AT MARALENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572 106.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU-572101.

¶19

THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

URUKERE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, BY ITS SECRETARY AND PRESIDENT 572 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R5)

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.135/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT TUMAKURU DISMISSNG THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.244/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., I AT TUMAKURU.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.

¶30

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property declaring that the entries in the revenue records are illegal and unlawful and to enter her name in the revenue records and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is a ‘Sarkari Kharab Gunduthopu’. This property was granted in favour of one K.Hanumaiah S/o Thirumalaiah on 13.10.1968 and Sannad was issued in his favour. As such, Hanumaiah became the absolute owner and his name was entered in the Index of Land and Record of Rights. Subsequently, Hanumaiah sold the schedule property in favour of one Lalithamma W/o Venkataramaiah under a Sale Deed and delivered the possession to her. In turn, the said Lalithamma had sold the suit land vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.10.1980 in favour of the plaintiff and possession was also handed over. On 25.10.1982, the Tahsildar, Tumakuru has ordered for transfer of Khatha and Pahani in the name of the plaintiff through Order No.MR.4/8485.

¶34

Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, without any material evidence, initiated proceedings and without issuing any notice either to the plaintiff or to said Hanumaiah had cancelled the grant made in favour of

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Hanumaiah. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff in Writ Petition No.24777/1991 before this Court, which was partly allowed by cancelling the mutation entries. Therefore, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Despite the same, the

¶38

Tahsildar - defendant No.4 without issuing any notice to the plaintiff, has entered the name of the Government in the records of the suit land. Thereafter, since the Grama Panchayat - defendant No.5 trespassed into the suit property by taking illegal possession, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants.

¶39

After entering appearance, defendant No.4-Tahsildar denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that originally the suit land was a 'Government Kharab Gundu Thopu' and K.Hanumaiah had been granted a Sannad to manage the said land, but the said land had not been granted to him. Therefore, K. Hanumaiah had no right and title to sell the suit property in favour of Lalithamma or any other person. It is his further case that

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

defendant No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Order LND(T) CR 3/8687 dated 19.09.1988 cancelled the Sannad and consequently, MR.No.45/7879 dated 20.03.1979 and MR No.4/8485 dated 15.10.1985 were also cancelled and declared the said land as a 'Government Gundu Thopu'. Thereafter, the said land was granted to the construction of a house under 'Ashraya Yojana' vide Order No.LND(Tmk) SL 21/9697 dated 03.02.1997. However, the said order was recalled and the said land was reserved for construction of Government building vide Order No. LND CR 45/9697 dated 01.01.1997. The Government had also granted Rs.10.00 lakhs for construction. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶43

The Trial Court, after framing the relevant issues, has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that though the plaintiff has failed to prove her title over the suit schedule property, she has proved her possession and interference caused by the defendants and as such she is

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

entitled to protect the same from the interference of the defendants.

¶48

On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re-

¶49

appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. As such, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents on record.

¶51

As could be gathered from records, the sannad issued in favour of Hanumaiah and the subsequent Sale Deeds including the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff are not seriously in dispute. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of Sannad, the revenue entries were mutated in the name of subsequent purchasers and in the name of plaintiff. The cancellation of sannad and the revenue

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

entries passed by the Deputy Commissioner though challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in WP.24777/1991, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has partly allowed the writ petition by sustaining the cancellation of mutation entries.

¶55

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that sannad issued in favour of Hanumaiah had not been cancelled, as such, the subsequent Sale Deeds including the Sale Deed made in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property sustain. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have granted the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.

¶56

This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the findings of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.24777/1991 in respect of sannad, the nature of the land, the limited right of Hanumaiah and the subsequent Sale Deeds had not been challenged. However, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

had been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in respect of possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In such circumstance, the prayer of the plaintiff for the relief of injunction has been rightly granted by both the Courts by rejecting the relief of declaration.

¶60

As such, in my view, there is absolutely no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly

¶61

dismissed .

¶62

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶64

PKS

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 in RA No.135/2018 dismissing the plaintiff's first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2018 in OS No.244/2012.¶¶25
II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., at Tumakuru · 08.08.2019
Prior proceeding
Grant of the suit property ('Sarkari Kharab Gunduthopu') to K.Hanumaiah S/o Thirumalaiah on 13.10.1968 with issuance of Sannad; Hanumaiah sold to Lalithamma, who sold to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 22.10.1980.¶3
Prior proceeding
Transfer of Khatha and Pahani to the plaintiff's name by the Tahsildar, Tumakuru through Order No.MR.4/8485 dated 25.10.1982.¶3
Prior proceeding
Cancellation by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru of the Sannad granted to Hanumaiah and of mutation entries MR.No.45/7879 dated 20.03.1979 and MR No.4/8485 dated 15.10.1985, declaring the land 'Government Gundu Thopu' (Order LND(T) CR 3/8687 dated 19.09.1988, per the defendants; the plaintiff alleged no notice was issued).¶5
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No.24777/1991 filed by the plaintiff before this Court against the cancellation; partly allowed by cancelling the mutation entries, thereby sustaining the cancellation of mutation entries while the findings on the sannad went unchallenged.¶4
Prior proceeding
Entry of the Government's name in the records of the suit land by the Tahsildar (defendant No.4) without notice to the plaintiff.¶4
Prior proceeding
Grant of the land for house construction under 'Ashraya Yojana' vide Order No.LND(Tmk) SL 21/9697 dated 03.02.1997; the order was recalled and the land reserved for construction of a Government building vide Order No. LND CR 45/9697 dated 01.01.1997, with Rs.10.00 lakhs granted for construction (per the Tahsildar's case).¶5
Prior proceeding
Trial in OS No.244/2012 (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Tumakuru): suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction partly decreed on 04.08.2018 — declaration of title refused for failure to prove title, but possession proved and injunction granted against interference by the defendants.¶6
Prior proceeding
First appeal RA No.135/2018: the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, concurred with the Trial Court's findings and dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019.¶7

Smt. Sumangala v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sumangala v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Nagesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Chikkaputtanna Vs Government of Karnataka

M Ennagara Yellamma Devara Devasthanada Vs Ramachandrappa

Sri. Ramabhovi Vs Smt. Thayamma

A Narasimha Iyengar Vs the State of Karnataka