R Basavaraj S/O Late Rudrappa Vs Sannapapaiah

THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 11.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.4.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.80/2002 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE.

¶30

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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.40 of 2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere, and the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2012 passed in O.S.No. 80 of 2002 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Challakere.

¶37

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

¶38

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶39

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration and a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Survey Nos. 4

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

and 6 of Modur Kaval village are the properties of his

¶43

father, and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The land bearing Survey Nos.4 and 6 measuring 8 acres 1 gunta was sold by the plaintiff’s

¶44

father in favour of one Hanumanthappa under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1951. At the time of the sale transaction, in survey No.6 about 1 acre of land was retained by the father of the plaintiff, accordingly, the mutation was effected. The said Hanumanthappa sold the properties in favour of third persons under a sale deed dated 03.10.1951. It is contended that one acre of land was retained by the father of the plaintiff and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death, and after his demise the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. The plaintiff explained the situation of the land in the rough sketch annexed to the plaint. Defendants 1 to 5 claim that they have purchased the complete plaint land in Survey No. 6

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

including the suit schedule land. The plaintiff tried to convince the defendants by showing the document, however, the defendants did not care for the same, and claim that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and making hectic efforts to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

¶49

Defendant Nos.6 and 7 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the father of defendant Nos.7 and 8 and husband of defendant No. 6 i.e., Dasappa had purchased survey Nos. 4 and 6 under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1977. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of Dasappa, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contented that neither the plaintiff nor his father have any right over the suit

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

schedule property. It is contended that since the

¶53

plaintiff stated that his father had retained one acre towards the northern side of Sy.No.6 land, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is contented that the suit schedule property does not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 03.10.1951. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 5 were in possession of the suit property to an extent of 4 acres towards northern side and defendant Nos.6 to 8 have purchased the said northern side in Sy.No.6 land. It is contended that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the property. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit against defendant Nos.6 and 7.

¶54

The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

¶55

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the father of the plaintiff retained 1 acre of suit schedule property in the sale

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

transaction dated 03.10.1951 to one Hanumanthappa?

¶60

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property?

¶61

3) Whether the plaintiff proves the interference made by the defendants over the suit schedule property?

¶62

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction as sought for?

¶63

5) What order or decree?

¶64

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. In rebuttal, defendant No.7 was examined himself as DW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13.

¶65

The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and issue No.5 as per the

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs vide judgment dated 10.04.2012.

¶70

The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No. 80 of 2002 preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 40 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere.

¶71

The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:

¶72

1) Whether judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse, capricious, arbitrary, oppose to law and it requires interference by this Court?

¶73

2) What order?

¶74

The First appellate court, after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.02.2013 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 80 of 2002.

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶79

Notice was issued to the defendants i.e., respondents herein. Despite the service of a notice, none appeared for the defendants.

¶80

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶81

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that both the courts below have committed an error in not properly considering the recital in Ex.P1, which discloses that the plaintiff's father had retained the land towards the northern side, and not towards the southern side. PW1 has also read the recital in Ex.P1 i.e., registered sale deed dated 03.10.1951, which discloses that the plaintiff's father had retained the land towards the northern side, and not towards the southern side. Thus, both the courts below have not adequately appreciated Ex.P1, and committed an

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on

¶86

these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶87

This Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 reframed the following substantial question of law:

¶88

" Whether the Courts below recorded perverse finding of the fact that the plaintiff's father said to have retained the land towards the northern side and not towards the southern side in view of the following recital in Ex.P1 sale dated 03.10.1951?''

¶89

" ಈ ಪತ�ದ ಹ��ೈದ�ೇ ಪಂ��ಯ�� ಎರಡ�ೇ ಜ�ೕನ ಎಂಬುದ�ೆ� ಬದ�ಾ� ಎರಡ�ೇ ಜ�ೕ�ನ ಉತ�ರ�ೆ� ಸ"ೆ# ನಂಬರು ಆರರ�� ನನ% &ಾಗ�ೆ� ಉ(�ರತಕ� &ಾಗ ಎಂತಓ��ೊಳ-.ೇಕು .”

¶90

Reg. substantial question of law No.1:

¶91

The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of title, and a permanent injunction to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit land bearing Sy. Nos. 4 and 6 of Modur Kaval Village, where the properties of the plaintiff’s father and he was in possession and

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

enjoyment of the same. The land bearing Sy. Nos.4 and 8 acres and 1 guntas of land in Sy.No.6 was sold by the plaintiff’s father in favour of one Hanumanthappa under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1951. At the time of sale transaction, in Sy.No.6, 1 acre of land was retained by the plaintiff’s father. Accordingly, the mutation was effected in the name of plaintiff’s father. The said Hanumanthappa had sold the property in favour of defendants. In Sy.No.6, 1 acre was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s father till his death. After his demise the plaintiff came in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants claims that they have purchased complete land in Sy No.6 including the suit schedule property, and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land.

¶96

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and has produced the

¶97

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

documents Ex.P1, is a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 03.10.1951. Ex.P2 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 05.03.1998. Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are the mutation register extracts. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the RTC extracts. Ex.P8 is the receipt patta. Ex.P9 to Ex.P15 are the land revenue receipts and Ex.P16 is the RTC extract.

¶100

From the perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. In rebuttal, the defendant No.7 was examined as DW.1 and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D13.

¶101

The crux of the case, is whether the plaintiff's father had retained 1 acre of land in Sy.No.6, i.e., the suit land is to be decided. From the perusal of the recital of Ex.P1-Registered sale deed dated 03.10.1951 executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of Hanumanthapa, Which discloses that Sy.No.6 of

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

Modur Kaval Village, measures 9 acres 1 gunta and he

¶106

sold 8 acres in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8.

¶107

From the perusal of the recital of Ex.P1, it indicates that the father of the plaintiff has retained the land towards the northern side, and not towards the southern side. The relevant portion of Ex.P1 is reproduced as follows:

¶108

" ಈ ಪತ�ದ ಹ��ೈದ�ೇ ಪಂ��ಯ�� ಎರಡ�ೇ ಜ�ೕನ ಎಂಬುದ�ೆ� ಬದ�ಾ� ಎರಡ�ೇ ಜ�ೕ�ನ ಉತ�ರ�ೆ� ಸ"ೆ# ನಂಬರು ಆರರ�� ನನ% &ಾಗ�ೆ� ಉ(�ರತಕ� &ಾಗ ಎಂತಓ��ೊಳ-.ೇಕು .”

¶109

From the perusal of the recital of Ex.P1, it clearly discloses that the plaintiff's father had retained the land towards the northern side, and not towards the southern side. Both the Courts below have not adequately considered the recital of Ex.P1, and committed an error in recording the finding that the plaintiff’s father had retained 1 acre of land towards the Southern side and not towards the Northern side.

¶110

14 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

The said finding recorded by both Courts below are contrary to recital in the registered sale deed as per Ex.P1. Thus, the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Thus the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary, perverse and erroneous, and the same are liable to be set-aside.

¶114

In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question in the affirmative.

¶115

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶116

ORDER

¶117

(i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed .

¶118

(ii) The judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.40/2012 dated 11.02.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80/2002, dated 10.04.2012 passed

¶119

15 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:42391 RSA No. 651 of 2013

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

by the learned Principal Civil Judge,

¶123

Challakere, are set-aside.

¶124

(iii) Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.

¶125

(iv) The plaintiff is declared as the owner of the suit schedule property, and the defendants are permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession, and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

¶126

(v) No order as to the costs.

¶127

(vi) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶128

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶129

SKS (para 15), RL

R Basavaraj S/O Late Rudrappa v. Sannapapaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Basavaraj S/O Late Rudrappa v. Sannapapaiah

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

Shri. N. Krishnappa Vs Shri Ramachandrappa

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Yogesha G P Vs the High Court of Karnataka

Dr. Sanaulla P F Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Bharathishetty Vs Smt Kamalamma

Sri S R Gururaja Vs the State of Karnataka