Dismissed¶84

Sri S B Javaregowda v. Smt Rathnamma

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025RSA/650/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court regular second appeal dismissed at admission stage; concurrent findings upheld; declaration and permanent injunction over granted land Survey No.48/II / Sy.No.48/3, Periyapatna, Mysore; unregistered sale deed confers no right, Section 17 Registration Act; subsequent registered sale deed 23.03.2006 confers no title; adverse possession rejected (additional issue No.3 negative); DW3 admission of cultivation by Rajanna's children; no substantial question of law; Justice H.P. Sandesh; RSA 650/2025; decided 06.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court can admit a second appeal only when there is perversity in the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court; finding no perversity, the Court does not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial questions of law. ¶74

Sri S B Javaregowda Vs Smt Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal, filed against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, should be admitted and substantial questions of law framed. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

¶74

Ratio / Principle

An unregistered document conveys no right in favour of any person in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act; accordingly the defendants' unregistered sale deed confers no title and the subsequent sale deed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 also does not confer any title.

¶80

Key takeaways

The defendants' own witness DW3 categorically admitted that after the death of B.Rajanna his children were cultivating the property, and the revenue entries rested merely on statements; this material, correctly appreciated by the courts below, defeats the defendants' possession-based pleas and shows no perversity in the concurrent findings.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA No. 650 of 2025 under Sec.100 CPC — Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings — Plaintiffs (widow and children of late B.Rajanna) sued for declaration and permanent injunction over land bearing Survey No.48/II, 2 acres 22 guntas (renumbered Sy. No.48/3), granted to B.Rajanna; defendants pleaded an unregistered sale deed dated 11.01.1986 (elsewhere stated as 10.01.1986) allegedly executed by B.Rajanna, a registered sale deed dated 23.03.2006 in favour of defendant No.4, and adverse possession — Trial court decreed the suit; first appellate court confirmed after reappreciation — Held: an unregistered document conveys no right in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act; DW3 admitted post-death cultivation by B.Rajanna's children — No perversity in the concurrent findings; no ground to admit and frame substantial questions of law — Second appeal dismissed at admission stage (H.P. Sandesh, J.; decision dated 06.11.2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI S B JAVAREGOWDA SON OF LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE, HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.

¶10

SMT.PUTTAMMA, WIFE OF BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.

¶13

SRI.KENCHEGOWDA, SON OF LATE ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE, HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT RATHNAMMA

¶21

WIFE OF LATE B.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A VODERAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.

¶22

SMT.RANI, DAUGHTER OF LATE B.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A VODERAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.

¶23

SMT.RATHNAMMA, WIFE OF LATE.KRISHNEGOWDA,

¶24

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE, HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102

¶25

SRI. UDESHA, SON OF LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE, HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102

¶26

SRI. YOGESHA, SON OF LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.284/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC @ PERIYAPATNA AND ALSO IN R.A.NO.24/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & DECREE DT.04.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO.284/2009 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.01.02.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2023 PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

appellants.

¶38

2. This matter is listed for admission and the appeal is filed against the concurrent findings.

¶39

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the trial court, while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, it is pleaded that

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of late B.Rajanna, S/o late Basappa. The Government has granted the land bearing Survey No.48/II, measuring an extent of 2 acres 22 guntas, which is more fully described in the schedule. After granting the said land, the husband of the plaintiff No.1 has become the owner and was in possession of the same. Thereafter, the Survey Department has carried out survey settlement and assigned new Survey No.48/3 to the said land. Katha and revenue entries have been changed in the name of the husband of plaintiff No.1. The husband of the plaintiff No.1 died about 16 years prior to filing the suit leaving behind the plaintiffs as successors to his estate. After the death of the husband of plaintiff No.1, the plaintiffs have continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. When fact being so, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 started interfering with possession of the plaintiffs' suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs obtained the RTCs and other documents and then they

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

came to know that the defendant No.3 got her name

¶47

entered in RTC with the active collusion of the revenue officials pertaining to the suit property under the guise of M.R.No.4/85-86 by bracketing the name of the husband of

¶48

the plaintiff No.1. Further plaintiffs came to know that defendants No.1 and 2 got the RTC entries under MR No.25/01-02 to the suit schedule property behind the back of the plaintiff with the active collusion of the revenue officials. It is learnt that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have colluded with each other and created the document making hectic efforts to interfere with their possession and when such factual aspects came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed a revenue appeal in R.A.No.76/2006-07 before the Assistant Commissioner for

¶49

rectification of the RTC in respect of the suit schedule property. The Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the

¶50

said R.A. on 13.07.2009 by directing the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court for the relief of declaration of their title over the suit property and hence

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

immediately filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and also contend that defendant No.4 has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 3 under registered sale deed dated 23.03.2006 and also took the specific defence that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have purchased suit schedule property from late B.Rajanna under unregistered sale deed dated 11.01.1986 and also their specific case that they have perfected the title by adverse possession. The trial court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff No.3 got examined as PW1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand, defendant examined one witness as DW1 and also examined two witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and got marked 50 documents as Exs.D1 to D50. The trial court having considered both oral and documentary evidence,

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

appreciated the material and answered issue Nos.1, 2 and

¶58

3 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that suit is not barred by limitation and immediately after the dismissal of the appeal they have approached the court within 4 to 5 months of dismissal of the appeal and also comes to the conclusion that the additional issue No.1 and 2 doesn't arise for consideration and additional issue No.3 is answered as negative in coming to the conclusion that they have not perfected the title over the suit schedule properties. In detail, the trial court from paragraph Nos.19 to 26, discussed with regard to the case of the plaintiff as well as defendants and decreed the suit granting the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.24/2023 and appellate court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is based on the facts and law applicable and whether it requires interference. On

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

reassessing both oral and documentary evidence comes to

¶62

the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff is supported by both oral and documentary evidence available on record and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶63

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that both the courts committed an error in not considering the case of the defendants and unregistered document was executed long back by the original grantee and also the counsel would vehemently contend that both trial court and appellate court committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and committed an error and hence requires interference of this Court to admit and frame substantial questions of law.

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Having heard the appellants' counsel and the

¶67

main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that there was an unregistered sale deed executed by late B.Rajanna, who is the husband and father of the plaintiffs, on 10.01.1986 and also defendant Nos.1 to 3 have sold the property in favour of defendant No.4, vide sale deed dated 23.03.2006 and also the other alternative defence which was taken is that there is adverse possession. The trial court while considering the case of the plaintiffs and defendants, in detail discussed from paragraph No.19 onwards with regard to the very document as unregistered document and the same is not admissible in the eye of law as well as the same will not confer any right and once the unregistered document doesn't confer any title, question of executing the sale deed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 also doesn't arise and has even taken note of the revenue entries. The revenue entries are also based on only the statement and not based on the basis of earlier

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

unregistered sale deed and also on any material on record and apart from that when the appellant counsel vehemently argues before the court that appellants are in possession of the property, but the very witness who has been examined before the trial court on behalf of the defendants i.e. DW3 categorically admits that after the death of B.Rajanna, his children are cultivating the property and also his evidence is only on preparation of the information given by the defendant No.2 i.e., chief evidence. When such evidence is available before the court and the same is rightly considered by the trial court from paragraph Nos.19 to 26 with regard to the claim is concerned and in their favour and not accepted the case of the defendants. The first appellate court also while reconsidering the material on record in keeping the grounds which have been urged in paragraph No.15 and 16, in detail taken note of the same and also the reasoning of the trial court with regard to the claim made by the plaintiff that property was granted in favour of the

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

husband and father of the plaintiffs and thereafter also they have been in continued the possession and when the revenue entries comes to the notice of the plaintiff they immediately filed the appeal and the appeal was also dismissed, giving a liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court for declaration of their title and accordingly the suit is filed for declaration based on the grant order as well as the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the case of the defendant that there was an unregistered sale deed was not accepted and subsequent document of sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 also does not confer any title in favour of defendant No.4 and when such reasoned order has been passed and this Court can admit the second appeal only when there is a perversity in the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court or otherwise question of admitting the

¶75

same doesn't arise. With regard to the question of law concerned, when the land was granted originally in favour of the grantee and the document was the unregistered

¶76

12 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:44908 RSA No. 650 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

document and the same doesn't convey any right in favour

¶80

of any of the persons in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act and question of law also taken note of by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Hence, I

¶81

do not find any ground to admit and frame substantial question of law.

¶82