Murthappa S/O Muniswamappa Vs Ramappa Since Deceased by Lrs

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2249 OF 2006

¶8

C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2072 OF 2006

¶9

IN RSA No. 2249/2006: BETWEEN:

¶10

MURTHAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA DEAD ON 02.05.2023 HIS LRs ARE AS FOLLOWS:

¶11

1(A). JAYAMMA W/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 70 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶12

1(B). NAGARATNAMMA D/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 55 YEAR, KABHIRA ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

1(C). MUNISWAMIGOWDA S/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 53 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶15

1(D). NILAMMA D/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 50 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶16

1(E). G.M.RAVINDRA S/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 48 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P),

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶18

2 -

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

RAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s.,

¶25

GOWRAMMA D/O. RAMAPPA W/O. GURAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST-563101.

¶26

NARAYANASWAMY S/O. RAMAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: RAILWAY POLICE CONSTABLE, BANGARPET, DIST: KOLAR-563101.

¶27

AKKEMMA D/O. RAMAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SINGANAHALLI, GANJUR POST, TALUK: CHINTAMANI, DIST: KOLAR-563101.

¶28

CHANNAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST-563101.

¶29

NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. 1/22, SAROJA ROAD, SRINIVASPUR, TALUK SRINIVASPUR, DIST KOLAR-563101.

¶30

GOVINDAPPA SINCEDE BY HIS LRs.,

¶31

LALITHAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

AMARNATH S/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶35

GEETHA D/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶36

PUSHPA D/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶37

RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 ARE R/O. MAIN ROAD, KAIWARA VILLAGE, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DIST.

¶38

RANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s.,

¶39

MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O. RANGAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KODICHERUVU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TALUK SRINIVASPUR, DIST: KOLAR.

¶40

VENKATAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s.

¶41

MUNIYAPPA S/O. PAPANNA OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶42

MUTHAPPA S/O. MUNIYAPPA OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶43

NAGA S/O. MUNIYAPPA OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 13 ARE R/O. VADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TK, KOLAR DIST.

¶44

NOTE: RESPONDENTS NO.11 AND 13 ARE DEAD AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL HEIR RESPONDENT NO.12 MUTHAPPA S/O. MUNIYAPPA,

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶48

ACHAMMA W/O. SEENAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: CHINTHAMANI, DIST: KOLAR.

¶49

LAKSHMAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KAIWARA VILLAGE, TQ: CHINTHAMANI, DIST: KOLAR.

¶50

RANGAPPA S/O. KAVETAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, KODICHERUVU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TQ: SRINIVASPUR, DIST: KOLAR.

¶51

VENKATARAMAPPA

¶52

SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s.,

¶53

RAMAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,

¶54

NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,

¶55

JAYAMMA D/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,

¶56

MANJULA D/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,

¶57

SRINIVASAPPA S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,

¶58

GOPALAPPA

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶60

5 -

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., RESPONDENTS NO.17 TO 22 ARE R/O. GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TK, KOLAR DIST-563101.

¶63

…RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI. Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. SOWMYA R., ADVOCATE FOR R20; NOTICE TO R5 TO R19 AND R22 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; R21 IS DECEASED)

¶65

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.4.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.2.2002 PASSED IN OS.NO. 21/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), SRINIVASPUR.

¶66

IN RSA NO. 2072/2006: BETWEEN:

¶67

SRIRAMAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.

¶68

NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.

¶69

JAYAMMA D/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶71

6 -

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

MANJULA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶74

SRINIVASAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s ARE AS FOLLOWS,

¶75

5(A). MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O. SRINIVASAPPA AGE: 67 YEARS, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI(P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAR DIST-563101.

¶76

5(B). SHOBHABATHAMMA G.S. D/O. SRINIVASAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/AT: THINNALI VILLAGE, HOGALAGERE(P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAR DIST.

¶77

5(C). SHUBHAVEENA D/O. SRINIVASAPPA AGE: 43 YEARS, R/AT: CHIRUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, NAMBIHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAR DIST.

¶78

5(D). G.S.RADHA D/O. SRINIVASAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, R/AT: THINNALI VILLAGE, HOGALAGERE(P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAR DIST.

¶79

5(E). G.S.VEDA D/O. SRINIVASAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, R/AT: GUNDAMANATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDIGAANAHALLI(P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAR DIST.

¶80

GOPALAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶82

7 -

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

ALL ARE R/O. GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TK, KOLAR DIST-563101.

¶85

...APPELLANTS

¶86

(BY SRI. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶87

AND:

¶88

RAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s.,

¶89

GOWRAMMA D/O. RAMAPPA W/O. GURAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST-563101.

¶90

NARAYANASWAMY S/O. RAMAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: RAILWAY POLICE CONSTABLE, BANGARPET, DIST: KOLAR-563101.

¶91

AKKEMMA D/O. RAMAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SINGANAHALLI, GANJUR POST, TALUK: CHINTAMANI, DIST: KOLAR-563101.

¶92

CHANNAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST-563101.

¶93

NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. 1/22, SAROJA ROAD, SRINIVASPUR, TALUK SRINIVASPUR, DIST KOLAR-563101.

¶94

LALITHAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶95

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

AMARNATH S/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶98

GEETHA D/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

¶99

PUSHPA D/O. GOVINDAPPA AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶100

RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 ARE R/O. MAIN ROAD, KAIWARA VILLAGE, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DIST.

¶101

RANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’s.,

¶102

MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O. RANGAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KODICHERUVU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TALUK SRINIVASPUR, DIST: KOLAR.

¶103

MUNIYAPPA S/O. PAPANNA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s.)

¶104

MUTHAPPA S/O. MUNIYAPPA OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶105

NAGA S/O. MUNIYAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s)

¶106

RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 13 ARE R/O. KODICHERUVU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TK, KOLAR DIST.

¶107

NOTE: RESPONDENTS NO.11 AND 13 ARE DEAD AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL HEIR RESPONDENT NO.12 MUTHAPPA S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶108

9 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

ACHAMMA W/O. SEENAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: CHINTHAMANI, DIST: KOLAR.

¶112

LAKSHMAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KAIWARA VILLAGE, TQ: CHINTHAMANI, DIST: KOLAR.

¶113

RANGAPPA S/O. KAVETAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, KODICHERUVU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TQ: SRINIVASPUR, DIST: KOLAR.

¶114

MURTHAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’s)

¶115

17(A). JAYAMMA W/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 70 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶116

17(B). NAGARATNAMMA D/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 55 YEAR, KABHIRA ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶117

17(C). MUNISWAMIGOWDA S/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 53 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶118

17(D). NILAMMA D/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 50 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶119

17(E). G.M.RAVINDRA S/O. MURTHAPPA AGE: 48 YEAR, R/AT: GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE,

¶120

10 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

KASABA HOBLI, CHALDHIGAANAHALLI (P), SRINIVASAPURA TK, KOLAT DIST.

¶124

...RESPONDENTS

¶125

(BY SRI. Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR R17(A) TO R17(E); NOTICE TO R5 TO R10 AND R14 TO R16 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 06.11.2009; R12 IS TREATED AS LR’s OF R11 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.01.2011; R12 IS TREATED AS LR’s OF R13)

¶126

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.4.2006 PASSED IN RA.NO. 58/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT III, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.2.2002 PASSED IN OS.NO. 21/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, SRINIVASPUR.

¶127

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶128

CAV JUDGMENT

¶129

These Regular Second Appeals are against the

¶130

concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and injunction and possession in the alternative. The suit is decreed granting the relief of declaration of title and injunction.

¶131

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, two Regular Appeals are filed i.e., R.A. No.82/2002 by defendant No.8 and R.A. No. 58/2002 by legal representatives of defendant No.5 and defendants No.6 and 7. Both Regular Appeals are dismissed by a common judgment. Hence these two second appeals.

¶134

Defendant No.8 in the suit filed R.S.A. No. 2249/2006 and defendants No.5 (a to d), 6 and 7 have filed R.S.A. No. 2072/2006.

¶135

The suit property is Sy.No. 62 measuring 1 acre 29 Guntas in Gundamanta Village, Shrinivasapura Taluk. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 18.08.1986. His vendor is Hanumappa and plaintiff’s vendor claims to have purchased the property from Seetaramaiah Shetty under registered sale deed dated 01.02.1962. The original vendor Seerataramaiah Shetty is said to be the grantee of the land.

¶136

It is relevant to notice the land granted to plaintiff’s vendor’s vendor Seerataramaiah Shetty is Sy.No.1 measuring 2 acres. The grantee sold land in Sy.No.1 measuring 2 acres. The

¶137

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

plaintiff claims to have purchased 1 acre and 29 guntas in the said Sy.No.1. However, the property mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.08.1986 is Sy.No.62 and not Sy.No.1.

¶140

The plaintiff claims that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62. Thus, he traces the title of his vendor’s vendor to the grant order in respect of Sy.No.1 and thereby claims title and possession over the property.

¶141

The defendants have contested the suit. Defendant Nos.1 to 4, 5 to 7 and defendant No.8 have filed separate written statements. The defendants essentially contend that the plaintiff is claiming right over the property bearing Sy.No.47 which according to them is not carved out from Sy.No.1 or 47 and said Sy.No.47 is distinct from Sy.No.1 and 62.

¶142

The plaintiff’s claim that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62 is denied. The further claim (developed during the trial) that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47, and later renumbered as 62, is also denied by the defendants.

¶143

Defendants contend that they are in possession of Sy.No.47, a Government waste land, since many years as

¶144

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶145

HC-KAR

¶146

unauthorised occupants, and their application seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation is pending consideration.

¶147

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that the plaintiff has established the title and possession. Defendants’ contention that the property bearing Sy.No.47 is not part of Sy.No.1 or 62 is rejected by both Courts.

¶148

On 17.10.2006, the appeals were admitted and following substantial questions of law was framed:

¶149

"Whether the Courts below were justified in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff when there is variance in the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P1, P2 and P6?"

¶150

The learned predecessor of this Court vide order

¶151

dated 05.03.2022 felt that the evidence is not sufficient to resolve the controversy and framed two additional issues as noted below:

¶152

i) Whether the property claimed by the plaintiff and its boundaries lay within Sy.No.1 of

¶153

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶154

HC-KAR

¶155

Gundamanha village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk?

¶156

ii) Whether property bearing Sy.No.62 of Gundamanha village is demarcated are carved out of the erstwhile survey No.47 of the said village?

¶157

After framing the aforementioned two questions,

¶158

this Court directed the parties to place evidence before the Trial Court on the said two issues and secured the findings of the Trial Court.

¶159

The Trial Court, after considering the additional evidence led by the parties on the aforementioned two issues, gave a finding on first additional issue, holding that the plaintiff did not establish that the suit property is part of Sy.No.1.

¶160

As far as second additional issue, the Trial Court

¶161

held that Sy.No.62 is not carved out of Sy.No.47.

¶162

Thus, both issues are held against the plaintiff.

¶163

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in

¶164

both appeals would submit that initially the suit is filed by the plaintiff claiming declaration of title and injunction over

¶165

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

Sy.No.62. In the plaint, it is pleaded that Sy.No.1 originally belonged to Seetaramaiah Shetty, and he sold the property to Hanumappa on 01.02.1962, and later, Hanumappa sold the property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 18.08.1986. It is stated in the plaint that the property sold to Hanumappa in 1962 was renumbered as Sy.No.62 by the time the property was purchased by the plaintiff in 1986. During the trial, the plaintiff claimed that the property bearing Sy.No.1 was renumbered as Sy.No.47 and later renumbered as Sy.No.62.

¶168

Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the documents produced by the plaintiff do not match the boundaries shown in the plaint, which pertains to Sy.No.47.

¶169

It is submitted that both parties led evidence on the additional issues framed by this Court, and the Trial Court has recorded the finding, and both findings are against the plaintiff.

¶170

Learned counsel further submits that in the crossexamination (after remand), PW-7 has admitted that Sy.No.1 and Sy.No.47 are at a distance of more than half a kilometer,

¶171

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶172

HC-KAR

¶173

and in between these Survey Numbers, there are other properties. By referring to the said admission, learned counsel would submit that the Trial Court is justified in recording a finding that Sy.Nos.1 and 47 are different and Sy.No. 1 is not renumbered as Sy.No.47 and later as Sy.No.62 as alleged by the plaintiff.

¶174

It is also urged that the Trial Court on those two additional issues has recorded a finding that the boundaries shown in the plaint do not tally with the boundaries shown in the records produced by the plaintiff. The boundaries shown in the plaint are not established, despite the matter being remanded by framing two specific issues which referred to the boundary, location, and identity of the suit property. Hence, learned counsel would urge that the suit of plaintiff has to be dismissed.

¶175

Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff/ respondents would submit that the plaintiff had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.62 from Hanumappa under a registered sale deed dated 18.08.1986 and his vendor Hanumappa had purchased the property under registered sale deed dated

¶176

17 -

¶177

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

01.02.1962 from Seetaramaiah Shetty, the grantee of the said land Survey No.1. By the time the plaintiff purchased the property in 1986, Sy.No.1 was renumbered as Sy.No.62 pursuant to revenue settlement, and the plaintiff had the same,

¶180

and after his demise, the respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, are in possession of the same.

¶181

Learned Senior Counsel would urge that the defendants are not the owners of Sy.No.1 or Sy.No.62, and they claim to be unauthorized occupiers of Sy.No.47, and Sy.No.47 was not granted to them. Thus, he would urge that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit, holding that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the previous title holder.

¶182

It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on additional issues are without any basis, and said findings are recorded by misinterpreting the evidence led on the aforementioned two issues. It is also urged that the evidence of PW-7 in the crossexamination is misinterpreted. Merely because PW7 has stated

¶183

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶184

HC-KAR

¶185

that the distance between Sy.No.1 and Sy.No.47 is about half a kilometer, that does not mean that the suit property and Sy.No.47 are different. It is his submission that Sy.No.1 is a vast extent of land, and Sy.No.47, being adjoining land to Sy.No.1, the distance of half a kilometer between Sy.Nos.1 and 47 does not mean that Sy.No.1 renumbered as Sy.No.62.

¶186

Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to additional documents produced before the Trial Court on additional issues, and also the report of the Court Commissioner at Ex.C4 to justify the impugned judgments and decrees.

¶187

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶188

The plaintiff’s claim is based on a registered sale deed dated 18.08.1986, said to have been executed by B.Hanumappa, S/o Balappa. The plaintiff claims that B. Hanumappa, in turn, had purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 01.02.1962. B.Hanumappa's vendor was Seetaramaiah Shetty, and Seetaramaiah Shetty is said to be a grantee of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1.

¶189

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶190

HC-KAR

¶191

At this stage, there may not be a dispute that Sy.No.1 was granted to Seetaramaiah Shetty, and Seetaramaiah Shetty sold property to B. Hanumappa on 01.02.1962 under a registered sale deed. Though the defendants disputed the grant and sale by Seetaramaiah Shetty in their written statements, the document produced would suggest that the land bearing Sy.No.1 in Gundamanha village, Srinivasapaura Taluk, was granted to Seetaramaiah Shetty. Said grantee sold the property under the sale deed dated 01.02.1962 in respect of two acres of land in Sy.No.1 in favour of B. Hanumappa. However, the sale deed dated 18.08.1986 by Hanumappa in favour of the plaintiff is in respect of Sy.No.62 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas and not Sy.No.1 measuring 2 acres.

¶192

The plaintiff claims that Sy.No.1 was subdivided into several subdivisions, and the plaintiff's property was numbered as 62 in Gundamanha Village, Srinivasapura Taluk. The defendant contested the alleged subdivision of Sy.No.1 as Sy.No.62. In addition, the defendants also contend that the plaintiff, to grab the property in occupation of the defendants,

¶193

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶194

HC-KAR

¶195

has shown the boundaries of the properties bearing Sy.No.47 in occupation of the defendants.

¶196

The crux of the matter is whether Sy.No.1, which is

¶197

granted to Seetaramaiah Shetty, is later renumbered as Sy.No.62.

¶198

On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, both have proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had acquired title over the property under the sale deed dated 18.08.1986 and also concluded that the plaintiff's vendor had acquired title over the property under the sale deed dated 01.02.1962 and plaintiff's vendor's vendor Seetaramaiah Shetty had acquired title over the property under the grant.

¶199

The sale deed dated 18.08.1986 is not in respect of Sy.No.1 measuring 2 acres, but it is in respect of Sy.No.62 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas. Thus, the plaintiff, to substantiate his contention that he is the owner of Sy.No.62, i.e., the suit property, must establish that Sy.Nos.1 and 62 are the same.

¶200

The easiest way to demonstrate such contention is to establish the boundary of Sy.No.1, which is said to have

¶201

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶202

HC-KAR

¶203

been granted to Seetaramaiah Shetty, and the boundaries in the sale deed dated 18.08.1986 are the same. The original grant order is produced. The said grant order for Sy.No.1, measuring 2 acres of land, does not disclose the boundary. Thus, the boundaries of the suit property cannot be ascertained with reference to the boundaries in the grant order.

¶204

If the plaintiff is not in a position to prove the boundaries of Sy.No.1 granted to Seetaramaiah Shetty and the boundaries of the property covered under the sale deed dated 18.08.1986 are the same or nearly the same with slight variation as the property sold under the sale deed dated 18.08.1986 is only 1 acre 21 guntas and not 2 acres said to have been granted, by comparison of boundaries in the sale deed and grant certificate, the plaintiff must establish that survey No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62.

¶205

To substantiate the contention that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62, the plaintiff has relied on the Commissioner's report marked at Ex.C-4 and the map at Ex.C5 . In addition to that, the Survey Commissioner (ADLR) appointed by the Court is also examined as Pw6.

¶206

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶207

HC-KAR

¶208

In his evidence, the Court Commissioner (Pw6) states that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62. The Court has perused the evidence of the Court Commissioner. On going through the evidence of the Court Commissioner, it is not possible to accept his statement. In the report, he has not stated that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 62 or Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47 and later renumbered as Sy.No.62.

¶209

In the cross-examination, he was asked to mark Sy.No.62 in the map produced. The Commissioner has marked the said portion in his handwriting before the Court during the cross-examination. In the original map produced by him, the said portion is not numbered as Sy.No.62. The document/map did not have the marking as Sy.No.62 before he marked it in Court during cross-examination.

¶210

More than anything else, Pw6 is unable to state the extent of Sy.No.1 and 47. Pw6 also states in the crossexamination that Sy.No.1 and 47 are different and adjoining to each other. If so, those two survey numbers are different and cannot be the same.

¶211

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶212

HC-KAR

¶213

The one relevant document for consideration is Ex.P9, based on which, the Trial Court has concluded that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62. The Court has perused the said document. It is the certified copy of Form No.6/record of rights. Said Form No.6/record of rights reveals that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.47 in terms of the order bearing ADLR No.181/1982-83 dated 08.09.1982 and the confirmation order dated 20.11.1982 passed by the Tahsildar.

¶214

It is relevant to notice that the defendants have produced the endorsement issued by ADLR, which is marked at Ex.D23. This is the document dated 28.08.2019, and this document was produced after the matter was remanded by this Court to record additional evidence.

¶215

The office of the ADLR, Srinivasapura taluk, has issued the endorsement stating that the order No.181/1982-83 dated 08.09.1982 about renumbering of Sy.No.1 as Sy.No.47 is not found in the original records.

¶216

Ex.P-9 speaks about the renumbering of Sy.No.1 as 47, and Ex.D-23 is an endorsement which says that no such

¶217

24 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶218

HC-KAR

¶219

renumbering has taken place. Now the Court has to decide whether Ex.P9 is valid or Ex.D-23 is valid.

¶220

It is relevant to notice that Ex.P9 is not an order

¶221

relating to renumbering. It is an entry in the record of right which would carry certain presumptive value unless rebutted. Ex.D-23, on the other hand, is the endorsement issued on an application filed by the defendants to furnish a copy of the order referred to in Ex.P9, the entry in the record of rights. The office of the ADLR Srinivasapura Taluk issued an endorsement stating that such an order is not found. In a way, the presumption arising from Ex.P9 that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47 is rebutted.

¶222

There is one more angle to the case. It is relevant to notice that the defendants have produced the record of rights of Sy.No.1 for the years 1968-69 to 1981-82. The total extent of land in Sy.No.1 is shown as 2 acres for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The name of Seetaramaiah Shetty, the original grantee, is shown as the owner. If he has sold 2 acres in 1962 in Sy.No.1, his name should not appear in the RTC of Sy.No.1. Though the property is said to have been sold to

¶223

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶224

HC-KAR

¶225

Hanumappa in the year 1962 itself and for the year 1980-81 onwards in column No.9 names of P.V. Seetaramaiah Shetty and B. Hanumappa are jointly shown. These documents are marked at Exs.D-9 to D-11, respectively.

¶226

In addition, the defendants have also produced the record of right of Sy.No.47, which is marked at Exs.D12 to D14. The record of right for Sy.No.47 marked at Ex.D12 is for the year 1975-76 to 1977-78, and the record of right for Sy.No.47 marked at Ex.D13 does not reveal the year nor the document marked at Ex.D.14. The extent of land is shown as 5 acres 20 guntas. Land record marked at Ex.D15 would also reveal that Sy.No.47 measures 5 acres 20 guntas. Thus, said documents would reveal that Sy.No.47 was in existence in 1975 itself. However, strangely, Sy.No.1 is shown to be renumbered as Sy.No.47 in 1981.

¶227

The defendants have also produced the record of right of Sy.No.47 for 3 acres 31 guntas for the year 2021-22 (Ex S1), and the said record of right does not reveal the name of the plaintiff and defendants in the property records. If Sy.No.47 is renumbered, as Sy.No.62, then the property record

¶228

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶229

HC-KAR

¶230

for Sy.No.47 should not be available. If Sy.No.47 found in Exs.12 to 14 and Ex.S1 are different from the plaintiff’s property, then the plaintiff should explain how Sy.No.47 found in Ex D12 to 14 is not part of Sy.No.1, as he has claimed that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.47 and later as Sy.No.62.

¶231

The Commissioner, in his evidence, has tried to make a statement that Sy.No.1 was renumbered as Sy.No.47 and later renumbered as Sy.No.62. As already noticed, the ADLR's office has already issued an endorsement stating that Sy.No.1 is not renumbered as Sy.No.47.

¶232

Thus, the judgment of the Trial Court that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47, then again renumbered as 62, is not supported by any acceptable materials. The finding is solely based on the evidence of the Court Commissioner, who has not placed any documents to support his evidence.

¶233

It is also required to be noticed that the plaintiff has also not stated in the plaint that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47 and later as 62. This version has come up only during evidence without a plea.

¶234

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶235

HC-KAR

¶236

This being the position, Ex.P9, based on which the plaintiff is claiming that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.47 and later renumbered as 62, cannot be accepted and one cannot conclude that Sy.No.47 at one point of time was Sy.No.1 as held by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

¶237

In Ex P9, it is stated that Sy.No.1 renumbered as Sy.No.47 vide order dated 1982. If it is so, why is the property sold under the sale deed dated 18.08.1986 described as Sy.No.62. There is an order to hold that Sy.No.47 is renumbered as Sy.No.62. The entry in one of the columns of Ex. P 9 that the new property number 62 is without any order by the competent authority.

¶238

The Trial Court, in its judgment, has concluded that the plaintiff has established title through sale deeds dated 01.02.1962, 18.06.1986, and the grant order. The Trial Court has relied on Ex.C-5, the Village Map to hold that survey No.1 and survey No.47 are the same and renumbered as survey No.62. This finding is erroneous in view of Ex.D23 and apparently the Trial Court did not have the benefit of referring

¶239

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶240

HC-KAR

¶241

to Ex.D.23 as the said document was not produced at that time when the judgment was delivered. The said document is produced only after the remand to record evidence on additional issues.

¶242

The Trial Court assumed that proof of the execution of the sale deed would establish the title over the survey No.62 without noticing the fact that there is no valid document to connect Sy.No.1 to Survey No. 47 and Sy.No.62.

¶243

The Trial Court has proceeded to hold that Ex.P2 has a presumptive value. Ex.P2 is a registered sale deed dated 01.02.1962. The said document is in respect of Sy.No.1 and not in respect of Sy.No.62. The Trial Court holds that Sy.No.62 is renumbered as 47 by relying on Ex.P9. The additional document produced at Ex.D.23 would reveal that Ex.P9 entered the record of rights/Form No.6 is without any basis or an order from a competent authority.

¶244

Apart from that, if at all Sy.No.1 was renumbered as 47 and subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.62, there ought to have been an order for renumbering Sy.No.1 as 47 as Sy.No.62 by the Competent revenue authority. The record of

¶245

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶246

HC-KAR

¶247

right of Sy.No.62 does not reveal any specific order converting Sy.No.47 as Sy.No.62. If at all, there was really a renumbering of Sy.No.1 as 47 and again Sy.No.47 as Sy.No.62, the record of the right of Sy.No.47 would not have been there for the year 2020-21 in respect of Sy.No.47.

¶248

Defendants have produced the record of rights for the year 2021-22 for Sy.No.47. That itself would indicate that Sy.No.1 is not renumbered Sy.No.47 and later as Sy.No.62. This view is also strengthened by Ex.D23 the endorsement issued by the office of the ADLR. Thus, this Court is of the view that the defendants have established their claim that the renumbering alleged by the plaintiff is incorrect.

¶249

At the same time, the plaintiffs have not produced satisfactory materials to show that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.47 and subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.62. It is also relevant to notice that Sy.No.1 originally measured 2 acres and Sy.No.47 is around 3 acres and 13 guntas Sy.No.62 is said to be measuring 1 acre 29 guntas. What happened to the remaining extent is not satisfactorily explained.

¶250

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶251

HC-KAR

¶252

This Court has also considered the judgment rendered by First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court has referred to the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6 and DW-1 to DW-6 and also referred to the documents produced by the defendants at Ex.P1 to P12 and Ex.D1 to D22. Then without discussing the aforementioned documents, only on the basis of the Court Commissioner's report at Ex.C-4 and the map at Ex.C-5 has come to the conclusion that old Survey number is renumbered as Sy.No.47 and thereafter, as Sy.No.62.

¶253

First Appellate Court did not discuss the evidence in detail though it should have done being the First Appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition, First Appellate Court did not have the benefit of Ex.D23 the endorsement produced by the defendant issued by the ADLR.

¶254

The plaintiffs filed documents at Ex.P13 to P30 (after remand by this Court) which do not establish renumbering of Sy.No.1 as Sy.No.47 and thereafter as Sy.No.62. Ex.P13 is the MR.No.T4 for the year 2013-14 which reflects extent of several survey numbers including Sy.No.62

¶255

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶256

HC-KAR

¶257

and MR.No.T4 records the names of owners of the property mentioned therein. These documents do not indicate that the properties numbered therein were formerly the part of the property bearing Sy.No.1 or 47 for that matter.

¶258

Ex.P14 is the document issued by the revenue department relating to sub-division. Though the said document is the document relating to the sub-division of Sy.No.62, and it refers to Sy.No.47 as old number, there is no reference to any order renumbering Sy.No.62 as 47 and Sy.No.1 as 47. Moreover, the document at Ex.P14 is dated 15.10.1962.

¶259

There is one more angle to the case. Both Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.14 contradict each other. Even according to the plaintiff's as per Ex.P9 (which is already shown to be not valid, as discussed above), the Survey No.1 is renumbered as 47 in the year 1982-83. However, Ex.P14 is said to been recorded on 15.10.1962. Said document refers to Sy.No.47 as old number and Sy.No.62 as new number. According to the plaintiff the renumbering has taken place in 1982 (as per Ex. P9). If so, how in Ex. P14 dated 15.10.1962 there can be a reference to Sy.No.62 and 47 is not explained. The plaintiff

¶260

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶261

HC-KAR

¶262

claims that Sy.No.1 was renumbered as Sy.No.62 in the year 1982.

¶263

The record of right pertaining to remaining survey

¶264

numbers other than Sy.No.1, 62 and 47 produced by the plaintiff are not relevant for adjudication of this case.

¶265

Ex.P-23 the RTC for the year 2021-22 of Sy.No.62 though records the name of the plaintiff as the owner the entry in the said record of right is not supported by acceptable materials to hold that survey No.62 is part of Sy.No.1. Since, the plaintiff is claiming right over the property, through the title flowing from grantee of Sy.No.1, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish his title to the property with reference to Sy.No.1 and must establish that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47 and later renumbered as 62 which he has failed to establish. In the plaint, it is stated that renumbering is done pursuant to revenue settlement. No evidence is produced relating to said revenue settlement. It is not even stated as to when the revenue settlement took place.

¶266

In the cross-examination, (after remand) Pw7 admits that between Sy.No.47 and 62, there are many other

¶267

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶268

HC-KAR

¶269

survey numbers. That would demonstrate that Sy.No.47 and 62 are different. If so, the plaintiff has, in fact laid a claim over Sy.No.47 by contending that it is renumbered as Sy.No.62 and both were earlier Sy.No.1, according to the plaintiff.

¶270

Since the plaintiff is not able to establish that the Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.47 and later as Sy.No.62, the suit must fail, though there is a sale deed in respect of Sy.No.62. What was purchased by the plaintiff’s vendor was Sy.No.1 and not Sy.No.62, part of which he sold in 1986. By asserting that Sy. No. 62 was part of an earlier Sy.No.47, the plaintiff laid a claim over Sy.No.47. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not noticed this aspect.

¶271

As already noticed that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court did not have the benefit of the evidence on additional evidence. The judgments under appeal are not sustainable.

¶272

Trail Court has elaborately discussed the evidence on additional issues, led after the remand and rightly recorded the finding. Since the findings on additional issues were not

¶273

34 - NC: 2025:KHC:41822 RSA No. 2249 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 2072 of 2006

¶274

HC-KAR

¶275

available for scrutiny by the First Appellate Court, the evidence on additional issues are re-appreciated by this Court.

¶276

Apart from that, it is noticed that the Trial Court misunderstood the evidence extracted in the judgment as the admission by the defendants against their claim. Such an interpretation is impermissible. However, additional evidence, after remand both documentary and oral have been properly analysed by the Trial Court.

¶277

For the reasons recorded above, the appeals must succeed. Though the appeals are allowed, this Court has not recorded any finding on the claim of the respective defendants that they are in possession of certain extent of land in Sy.No.47.

¶278

It is also made clear that the Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is unable to establish that the property which was purchased under the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1986 is now renumbered as Sy.No.62. Hence, the suit is dismissed. In case, the plaintiff has purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1986 any other property other than the suit property, it is open to the

¶279