Disposed¶62

Madamma v. Nanjunda

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025RSA/677/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC regular second appeal disposed 18.12.2025; claim of absolute ownership and possession of suit land denied absent order of re-grant; land standing in name of Government; RTC records Exs.P5 to P13; Ex.P4 preliminary record; concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court; liberty given to apply for re-grant before Government; Nanjangud; Section 100 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellants to approach the appropriate authority for re-grant of land; the regular second appeal disposed of on that observation. ¶62

Madamma Vs Nanjunda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54301 RSA No. 677 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.677 OF 2025 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN:

MADAMMA

(DEAD) HER LRS.

YELLAMMA D/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶13

MALAMMA D/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶14

JAYAMMA D/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MAHADEVA S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶17

HEMAVATHI D/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶18

NAGANNA

¶19

S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

MANJU S/O LATE MADAIAH

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54301 RSA No. 677 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶24

VIJAYKUMAR S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶25

REKHA D/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶26

ANNAIAH S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶27

EARLIER ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MANJU-7^TH APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT KALALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO.3523, 1ST CROSS, THILAK NAGAR, MYSURU-570021.

¶28

…APPELLANTS

¶29

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

NANJUNDA S/O LATE NINGNAIKA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶32

NANJANAIKA S/O LATE NINGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶33

DEVANAIKA S/O LATE NINGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶34

KAPINI NAIKA S/O LATE NINGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:54301 RSA No. 677 of 2025

HC-KAR

NINGANAIKA

S/O LATE NINGANAIKA DEAD RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE HIS LRS

¶40

ALL RESIDING AT KALALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571118.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.61/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.48/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

¶47

learned counsel for the appellants.

¶48

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

¶49

finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶50

The factual matrix of case of the plaintiffs before

¶51

the Trial Court is that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:54301 RSA No. 677 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that Ex.P4 relied upon is a preliminary record and no doubt, plaintiffs are in continued possession, even this fact is established on perusal of Exs.P5 to P13-RTCs. But, to claim ownership over the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs at least ought to have made an application for re-grant of land. The principle of law is that ignorance of law is not an excuse and the plaintiffs cannot plead ignorance of such law and the Court cannot grant the relief as sought on the claim that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs having failed to show that they have been re-granted the suit property, they cannot claim the suit property as owners and mere filing of suit for declaration as owners before the Court is improper without there being an order of re-grant either in the name of the elders of plaintiffs or in the name of plaintiffs. Hence, dismissed the suit.

¶56

The same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, once the property is found in the name of Government, the plaintiffs

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54301 RSA No. 677 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

cannot be called in peaceful possession over the suit schedule property and observation made by the Trial Court is not an

¶60

error and confirmed the same.

¶61

Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the appellants will file an application for regrant of land before the Government. Hence, in view of the said submission, liberty is given to approach the appropriate authority.

¶62

With the said observation, the regular second appeal is disposed of.

¶63

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶64

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Madamma v. Nanjunda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madamma v. Nanjunda

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

Smt Radha Vs Sri Sridhara

Sri Syed Kaleem Vs Sri Chikkanne Gowda

Sri H M Mahadevaswamy Vs Sri Bhaskara

Sri. Y C Narayanappa Vs Smt. Narasamma

Sri H L Narayana Vs Sri H G Eshwar

Lingappa Vs Mark D'Lima