Dismissed¶82

Sri. Hanumanthaiah v. Sri. Karuppa Gounder

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025RSA/395/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (H.P.Sandesh J., 03.11.2025) dismisses RSA No.395/2022 against concurrent findings; grant certificate 27.01.1962; sale deed 24.05.1972 (Ex.D1) to P.T.Subbaiah; occupancy rights to Meenakshamma 05.02.1982; sale deed 30.04.1999 to defendant; plea that alienation in breach of grant condition renders sale void and confers no title rejected as sale unchallenged since 1972; handwriting expert and Commissioner reports against appellant; subsequent purchasers denied relief for defective title; no perversity, no substantial question of law, Section 100 CPC not invoked; suit costs Rs.3,000/- noted.

What did the court decide?

None - the regular second appeal was dismissed without admission or framing of substantial questions of law. ¶82

Sri. Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri. Karuppa Gounder — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the regular second appeal was dismissed without admission or framing of substantial questions of law.

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal merits admission, i.e., whether there is any perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court or material on record left unconsidered, so as to require framing of a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. +2 more

¶75

Court's answer

There is no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court; it is not a case to admit the second appeal or frame any substantial question of law, and the question of invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise.

¶78

Ratio / Principle

The contention that both the Courts committed an error in relying upon Ex.D1 and the Commissioner's report is erroneous and cannot be accepted, since the sale in favour of P.T.Subbaiah was not in dispute and was not questioned, and the handwriting expert's report and the Commissioner's report go against the appellant.

¶70

Key takeaways

The contention that the plaintiff ought to have been declared owner of the property consequent upon the grant made in the year 1962 cannot be accepted, the property having been sold long back in the year 1972 and the plaintiff having lost the right; the relief of declaration therefore does not arise.ratio¶74
Appellants Nos.2 and 3, though subsequent purchasers, hold under a defective title and no relief can be granted in their favour because appellant No.1 himself, the original plaintiff, had no title to the property.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII CPC - concurrent findings of Trial Court (O.S.No.26/2005) and First Appellate Court (R.A.No.59/2017) upholding dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction - plaintiff claimed 'A' schedule property (4 acres) under Government Grant Certificate dated 27.01.1962 and alleged encroachment of 'B' schedule property (0.55 hectares) - defendant traced title through registered sale deed dated 24.05.1972 (Ex.D1) by plaintiff in favour of P.T.Subbaiah, whose tenant Meenakshamma obtained occupancy rights (certificate dated 05.02.1982) and sold to the defendant by deed dated 30.04.1999 - Held: the 1972 sale was not in dispute and was never questioned; handwriting expert's and Commissioner's reports went against the appellant; contention that Ex.D1 was void ab initio for violating grant conditions and conferred no title rejected; subsequent-purchaser appellants Nos.2 and 3 have defective title since appellant No.1 himself had no title; no perversity in concurrent findings; no substantial question of law; invocation of Section 100 CPC does not arise - second appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.395 OF 2022 (DEC/PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE MARIHUNCHEGOWDA R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-573 113.

¶10

SRI. R. RAMSWAMY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE MARIHUNCHEGOWDA R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-573 113.

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. MANJULA R, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O SRI. P. RAMASWAMY R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-573 113.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. ANANTHARAM G.R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. KARUPPA GOUNDER S/O LATE RANGASWAMY GOUNDER SINCE DECEASED ON 01-12-2021 SURVIVED BY HIS LRS

¶17

SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. VELUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶22

SRI. PALANISWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶23

ALL RESIDING AT SY.NO.23/2 BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE HARADANAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 127.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. R.C.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶26

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.59/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) CHAMARAJANAGAR.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶34

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

¶35

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.26/2005 before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is to declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘A’ property having acquired through grant (Durasth) by the Government under the Grant Certificate dated 27.01.1962 i.e. ‘A’ schedule property measuring 4 acres of land and ‘B’ schedule property measuring 0.55 hectares illegally encroached by the defendant in the ‘A’ schedule property on the western side situated at Bommanahalli Village. It is also contented that defendant is the neighboring land of the plaintiff having his lands on the western side of the suit property in Sy.No.23/2 measuring 2 acres. It is further averred

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

in the plaint that during the month of June, 2003, the plaintiff's niece expired at Bangalore. The plaintiff went along with his family for a period of 10 days to Bangalore and was not in station and after he returned back to his village, he came to know that portion of the property was encroached. Hence, sought for the relief of declaration and also possession in respect of ‘B’ schedule property.

¶40

The defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that suit ‘A’ property was originally granted to plaintiff by the Government under the Grant Certificate dated 27.01.1962 and plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the ‘A’ schedule property till 24.05.1972. It is contended that on 24.05.1972, the plaintiff sold suit ‘A’ property to one Sri P.T.Subbaiah under a registered sale deed and the possession of suit property was delivered to P.T. Subbaiah. The said Sri P.T. Subbaiah let out the western portion of 1 acre, 36 guntas out of 4 acres of suit property to one Meenakshamma, who claimed occupancy rights which was granted to her through the occupancy certificate dated 05.02.1982. Hence, Meenakshamma became the owner of the western portion of 1

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

acre, 36 guntas of suit ‘A’ property. That the said Meenakshamma sold the said property to this defendant under a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1999. It is also contented that the defendant is in continuous possession of 1 acre 36 guntas on the western portion of ‘A’ schedule property. The total extent of land in Sy.No.23 is 6.05 acres. At the time of phoding out the western 0.5 guntas of land provided for road was numbered as 23/1. On the eastern side of Sy.No.23/1, there is a katte tank measuring 2 acres and it was numbered as 23/2. The remaining extent of 4 acres of eastern portion in Sy.No.23 was numbered as 23/3. At the time of phoding and changing of khatha, Revenue Authorities and Survey Authorities, wrongly entered the name of Meenakshamma to 23/2 instead of 23/3. Since Sy.No.23/2 is the land reserved for katte or tank, the concerned authority should not have changed the khatha of Sy.No.23/2 in the name of Meenakshamma. The said Meenakshamma has been in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre, 36 guntas in Sy.No.23/3. Both the defendant and his vendor Meenakshamma were not aware of this mistake committed by revenue and survey authorities. Hence, in the sale deed dated 30.04.1999, it is mentioned that Sy.No.23/2

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

was sold and hence, the defendant is in occupation of Sy.No.23/3 and no question of encroachment of ‘B’ schedule property by the defendant as he is the owner of the property.

¶49

The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint as well as the written statement framed the issues whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of ‘A’ schedule property, whether the defendant has illegally encroached ‘B’ schedule property, whether the defendant proves that plaintiff sold ‘A’ schedule property to P.T. Subbaiah through registered sale deed dated 24.05.1972 and delivered possession of ‘A’ schedule property to P.T. Subbaiah, whether the defendant proves that the Land Tribunal, Chamarajanagara has granted occupancy rights in favour of Meenakshamma dated 05.02.1982, whether the defendant proves that Meenakshamma sold the western portion of 1 acre, 30 guntas in ‘A’ schedule property to this defendant through a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1999 and from the date of purchase till today, this defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of ‘B’ schedule property.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considered the admission on the part of defendant that the property was originally granted in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of 4 acres and the same is not disputed. But, a specific contention was taken by the defendant that the same was sold in the year 1972 in favour of P.T. Subbaiah and to that effect, oral evidence and evidence is also placed before the Court and when the property was sold, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not having absolute right and sale deed was also executed in the year 1972 in favour of P.T. Subbaiah and also considered the grant order made in favour of Meenakshamma by the Land Tribunal and subsequently, the said Meenakshamma sold the property in favour of defendant and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’ and answered issue Nos.3 to 6 in favour of defendant and dismissed the suit with cost of Rs.3,000/-.

¶54

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.59/2017. The First Appellate Court also having

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, in keeping the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the point whether the case pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and written statement was properly considered by the Trial Court, whether Exs.P1 to P21 properly which clearly reveal that plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property, whether the Trial Court has totally failed to appreciate the oral evidence of plaintiff and evidence of Court Commissioner and Court Commissioner report as per Exs.C1 to C3. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has rightly answered issues involved between the parties and answered all the points for consideration as ‘negative’ and it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶59

The present second appeal is filed by appellant No.1/plaintiff and also subsequent purchasers i.e., appellant Nos.2 and 3 and these two appellants have purchased the property from the plaintiff and this Court granted leave to come on record, since they are subsequent purchasers. Hence,

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

appellant Nos.2 and 3 are also brought on record. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the document Ex.P1 is very clear that there was a grant in favour of appellant No.1 and even if any sale is made in the year 1972 and the same is in violation of grant order, the same will not create any title in favour of said P.T. Subbaiah. The counsel also would contend that both the Courts committed an error in considering that property purportedly granted to one B.T. Ganesh by the Government in the land bearing Sy.No.23/2 and the property is ‘A’ schedule property which was originally granted in favour of the plaintiff and if any such violation of condition of grant prohibiting alienation, it would be void inasmuch as Ex.D1 was void ab initio and will not create any right and title. The counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in relying upon Commissioner report i.e., Ex.C1 and though the signature of the original plaintiff i.e., P.W.1 tallies with the subsequent admitted document, the same would not defeat the rights of appellant No.1 and appellants Nos.2 and 3 are subsequent purchasers from the original owner. Hence, the very approach of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is erroneous.

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the respondent also not dispute that property originally belongs to plaintiff No.1. But, plaintiff No.1 sold the property in the year 1972 itself. Learned counsel would submit that vendor of the respondent was a tenant of the subsequent purchaser P.T. Subbaiah and occupancy right was granted in favour of Meenakshamma and Meenakshamma, in turn sold the property in favour of P.T. Subbaiah. When such being the case, question of any encroachment as contented by the appellant does not arise. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the sale was made in terms of Ex.D1, the same was sent to handwriting expert and handwriting expert has also given the report that signature available in Ex.D1 and also admitted signature of the plaintiff are one and the same. When such being the case, whether the document is void document or not is not the issue and when the property was already sold, question of granting any relief of declaration does not arise and the said aspect has been considered by both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also the reason assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, looking into the factual aspects, it is not in dispute that property was originally granted by the Government in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1962. It is the specific case of the respondent that the very same property was sold in the year 1972 in favour of one P.T. Subbaiah as per Ex.D1. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that though counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the sale deed was a void document and the fact that already there was a sale in favour of P.T. Subbaiah is not in dispute and the same was not questioned. Apart from that, when the sale deed was executed in terms of Ex.D1 in favour of P.T. Subbaiah and the said document was also sent to handwriting expert and handwriting expert and Commissioner report also goes against the appellant herein, when such being the case, the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in relying upon the document of Ex.D1 and Commissioner report is erroneous and the said contention cannot be accepted once the property was sold long

¶71

12 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

back in the year 1972 and the very contention of the appellant that the plaintiff ought to have been declared as owner of the property, consequent upon the grant made in the year 1962 cannot be accepted.

¶75

No doubt, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the subsequent purchasers and in view of defective title in respect of the title of appellant Nos.2 and 3, this Court cannot grant any relief in their favour for the reason that very appellant No.1, who is the plaintiff before the Court was not having any title with regard to the property is concerned. Hence, no error was committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record and the second appeal could be admitted only if there is any perversity in the finding and if the material available on record is not considered by both the Courts and only under such circumstances, the Court can consider the second appeal. With regard to substantial question of law is concerned, once the property was sold long back in the year 1972 and the plaintiff lost the right, question of seeking the relief of declaration also does not arise and though the appellant contend that the sale

¶76

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:44103 RSA No. 395 of 2022

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

deed is a void document and the same will not confer any title, the said contention cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that sale was already made long back and it was not challenged and the material available on record goes against the appellant. Hence, it is not a case to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law and question of invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise.

¶79