Haleshappa v. Anasuyamma

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026RSA/1467/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; RSA No.1467/2016 (DEC); Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur; Section 100 CPC narrow scope; substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact; second appeal dismissed at admission; encroachment of 1 acre in Sy.No.67/1; hudbast/survey 14.08.2007; registered sale deed 01.02.2007; khatha pahani mutation; adverse possession not pleaded; Rukumani v Manohar RSA 63/2007 distinguished; Gurdev Kaur v Kaki 2006 AIR SCW 2404 referred; Channagiri; Davangere; Lingadahalli village; O.S.No.94/2008; R.A.No.48/2014; O.S.No.65/2008 refund of earnest money; Shivakumaraswamy vendor; mesne profits enquiry.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage and pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive and pale into insignificance. ¶¶154

Haleshappa Vs Anasuyamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage and pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive and pale into insignificance.

¶¶154

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant has made out any ground calling for interference and framing substantial questions of law? +1 more

¶¶132

Court's answer

No perversity or illegality is found in the judgments rendered by the trial Court or the first appellate Court; their concurrent findings do not call for interference in this second appeal.

¶¶152

Ratio / Principle

No substantial question of law exists to be framed in the present case; consequently the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

¶¶143

Key takeaways

The powers under Section 100 CPC are narrow and limited: the Court in second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless perversity is shown in the judgments of the trial Court and first appellate Court, and should refrain from imposing a third opinion on concurrent findings absent cogent material.ratio¶¶147
The Coordinate Bench judgment (Rukumani v. Manohar, RSA No.63/2007) relied on by the appellant is not applicable to the present facts: adverse possession was neither pleaded by the defendant, nor framed as an issue by the trial Court, nor supported by any evidence adduced; further re-elicitation of evidentiary material already dealt with by the two courts is not permissible in second appeal.ratio¶¶139

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under S.100 CPC (RSA No.1467/2016 (DEC), High Court of Karnataka, Pradeep Singh Yerur J., decided 02.04.2026) dismissed at the admission stage. Plaintiff Anasuyamma (through P.A. holder) had sued in O.S.No.94/2008 (Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri) for declaration of ownership, delivery of possession and mesne profits over Sy.No.67/P of N.Ganadakattu Village (2 acres 36 guntas, excluding 6 guntas kharab), bought under registered sale deed dated 01.02.2007; a hudbast/survey on 14.08.2007, at which the defendant was present and signed, showed defendant Haleshappa (owner of Sy.No.60) encroaching about 1 acre. The trial Court decreed the suit on 29.01.2014 (possession within 3 months; mesne profits enquiry by separate petition); the first appellate Court confirmed it on 05.03.2016 in R.A.No.48/2014, rejecting the defendant's pleas of some 30-35 years' possession, an unregistered purchase from the erstwhile vendor Shivakumaraswamy, and an agreement of sale (dated 30.08.2006 per the trial Court issues and appellate point 4; 30.08.2007 per respondent counsel's contention) involving Rs.50,000/- received and Rs.5,50,000/- consideration; the defendant's earlier suit O.S.No.65/2008 for refund of earnest money had been dismissed for failure to prove the agreement. The High Court found no perversity or illegality, held that no substantial question of law existed, distinguished the Coordinate Bench ruling in Rukumani v. Manohar (RSA No.63/2007, 28.01.2025) because adverse possession was neither pleaded nor framed as an issue nor evidenced, and reiterated the narrow scope of S.100 CPC (respondent counsel had cited Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, 2006 AIR SCW 2404). Appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications pale into insignificance.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1467 OF 2016 (DEC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HALESHAPPA S/O.LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT LINGADAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213

¶8

ANOTHER ADDRESS: HALESHAPPA (LINGADAHALLI) D.NO.1567/30, 1^ST CROSS 1^ST MAIN, VIDYA NAGAR TARALABALU EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577 001

¶9

&APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ANASUYAMMA W/O.LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT LINGADAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213 BY HER P.A.HOLDER GIRISH KUMAR L.M. S/O.MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT LINGADAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213

¶14

&RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI UMESH MOOLIMANI FOR SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATES FOR C/R)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.48/2014 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.94/2008 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2016 passed in R.A.No.48/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.94/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri.

¶23

Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

3.1 The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of declaration of ownership and delivery of

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

possession and mesne profits. It is the case of the plaintiff

¶29

that the land bearing Sy.No.67/P of N.Ganadakattu Village measuring 2 acres 36 guntas was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 01.02.2007 for

¶30

a valuable consideration and thereafter, the mutation was effected in the name of the plaintiff. The khatha and pahani stand in the name of the plaintiff and the land has been assigned with hissa phodi No.67/1 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas excluding 6 guntas of kharab land. It is also stated that the plaintiff got conducted hudbast/survey on 14.08.2007 through the Survey Department by issuing notices to the adjacent land owners including the defendant. He has also signed the statement recorded by the Surveyor and it was found that during the survey, the defendant being the owner of Sy.No.60, had encroached Sy.No.67 to an extent of 1 acre which is shown in the

¶31

survey sketch. This aspect of the fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only on 14.08.2007, when the survey was conducted. After the survey, the defendant

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

with the help of his supporters in the village forced the plaintiff and her sons to give up their rights in favour of the defendant. Even though plaintiff and her sons did not agree for their demands, they took the signature of the plaintiff and her sons and as such the plaintiff left with no other alternative filed suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property.

¶35

3.2 Upon issuance of summons, the defendant appeared before the Court, filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and sought for dismissal of the suit. A plea was taken by the defendant

¶36

that the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 01.02.2007 is concocted and the plaintiff has colluded with the vendor Shivakumaraswamy to defraud the defendant of the property in which the defendant has been in possession since 35 years. Several other contentions were taken by the defendant including the plea that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's lawful possession in the suit schedule property for a long period of time.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

3.3 Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the

¶41

learned trial judge framed the following issues for consideration.

¶42

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit properties?

¶43

ii. Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession of suit land since 30 years?

¶44

iii. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has executed a sale agreement on 30.08.2006 and received a sum of Rs.50,000-00 ?

¶45

iv. Whether the defendant proves that he has also paid a sum of Rs.50,000-00 to plaintiff towards total sale consideration?

¶46

v. Whether the suit is barred by time?

¶47

vi. What is the correct Court fee to be paid? - Deleted

¶48

vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession?

¶49

viii. What order or decree?

¶50

ix. Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction?

¶51

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

¶52

Whether suit of plaintiff is bad for non - joinder of necessary parties?

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Recasted issue:

¶56

Whether Court fee paid by plaintiff is proper ?

¶57

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and prove the case, the plaintiff examined her power of attorney holder as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked

¶58

Ex.P1 to P11. The defendant examined himself as DW1

¶59

and got marked Ex.D1 to D9.

¶60

3.5 Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary and having gone through the Exhibits produced and the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the trial Court did find favour with the plaintiff, however did not agree with the contentions taken up by the defendant, answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff and negated those issues caused to be proved by the defendant and on being satisfied with the case laid out by the plaintiff, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property within 3 months

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

and also ordered for enquiry into mesne profits by

¶65

separate petition.

¶66

3.6 Aggrieved by the decretal of the suit, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri in R.A. No. 48 of 2014. Upon summons being served in the first appeal and on appearance of the plaintiff, the matter was re-heard, reanalyzed and reconsidered once again by the appellate Court and based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the judgment of the trial Court, and the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the

¶67

first appellate court formulated the following points for consideration:

¶68

Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the suit schedule property?

¶69

Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property?

¶70

Whether the defendant proves that he is in actual lawful possession of the suit land since 30 years?

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has executed an agreement of sale on 30.08.2006 by receiving Rs.50,000/- of the sale consideration in respect of the suit schedule property?

¶75

Whether the appellant/defendant proves that the judgment and decree of the trial court is not in accordance with law and it is perverse?

¶76

Whether the plaintiff/appellant proves that the interference of this court is necessary to the judgment and decree of the trial court?

¶77

What order or decree?

¶78

3.7 The first appellate Court upon reconsideration of

¶79

the materials and re-look of the matter once again came to the conclusion that the defendant was unable to prove the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and so also the contention with regard to the original suit which was filed earlier by the defendant against the plaintiff for refund of the agreement sale consideration, in which the defendant had claimed to have paid a sum of ¹ 5,00,000/- being rejected, negated the claim so made by the defendant, did not agree with the

¶80

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

contentions putforth by the appellant/defendant that there

¶83

was a sale in favour of the defendant by the erstwhile vendor i.e. Shivakumaraswamy and no documents being produced and proved by the defendant, did not agree with the defendant and also taking into consideration the fact that defendant was present at the time of survey being conducted and a signatory to the said survey, rejected the appeal filed by the defendant and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by its impugned judgment.

¶84

3.8 It is these two concurrent findings of fact which

¶85

are now questioned by the appellant/defendant before this Court.

¶86

I have heard learned counsel for appellant/

¶87

defendant as well as learned counsel for respondent/ plaintiff.

¶88

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

¶89

for appellant/defendant that the trial Court as well as the

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

first appellate Court have committed a serious illegality

¶94

and perversity in decreeing the suit without taking into consideration the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary. It is further contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have failed to take into consideration the fact that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years by virtue of execution of a sale deed by the vendor of the plaintiff viz., Shivakumaraswamy and that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession of the suit schedule property. It is also his contention that the trial Court has misconstrued the evidence placed before the

¶95

Court including the possession of the defendant for more than 30 years and that the defendant had grown coconut trees and cultivating the land. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts

¶96

have failed to take into consideration that the property was purchased by the defendant's father from the vendor of the plaintiff and at that time, a registered sale deed was

¶97

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

not executed, but assured to execute sale deed at a later

¶100

point of time and since then, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. All these aspects have been conveniently ignored by the trial Court and the first appellate Court.

¶101

5.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for appellant that both the Courts have mainly relied upon the survey sketch, though the survey sketch not stated that the defendant has encroached the suit property and as such, the entire approach of the Courts below is bad in law.

¶102

5.2 On these grounds, learned counsel contends that the judgment & decree rendered by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court is perverse and arbitrary and calls for interference and sought for framing substantial questions of law as urged in the appeal memo.

¶103

5.3 In support of his contentions, learned counsel for appellant has relied upon a judgment of Coordinate Bench

¶104

12 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

of this Court in the case of Rukumani -vs- Manohar

¶108

since deceased by L.Rs. in RSA No.63/2007 dated 28^th January 2025.

¶109

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff vehemently contends that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment rendered by both the Courts. It is contended that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have rendered a judgment based on the documents produced and the materials placed on record. It is further contended that there is a registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff dated 01.02.2007 with regard to suit schedule property and all the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff and that when survey was conducted on 14.08.2007, it was realised by the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached to an extent of 1 acre in Sy. No.67/1. The defendant had participated in the said survey, as notice was given while conducting the hadubastu. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that defendant

¶110

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

has taken multiple contradictory pleas in the written statement. Firstly, it is pleaded by defendant that he is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the property from its vendor viz., Shivkumaraswamy and

¶113

came into possession of the same, however admits that there was no sale deed executed. Secondly, it was also pleaded by the defendant that an agreement of sale dated 30.08.2007 was executed in his favour by the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property for ¹ 5,50,000/-. Despite stating so, no documents are produced to show or establish that there was any sale agreement or he had purchased the property from the erstwhile owner - Shivkumaraswamy.

¶114

6.1 Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff further

¶115

contends that the defendant also took up the plea that he is in possession of the suit schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiff for a longer of time. However did not plead anything specific with regard to adverse possession and no such issue was also framed. Learned

¶116

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

counsel for the respondent further contends that in the cross-examination the defendant was confronted with the documents pertaining to O.S. No. 65 of 2008 which were filed by the defendant seeking for refund of the earnest money deposit paid to the plaintiff, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the defendant had not proved the agreement of sale. So, all these aspects have been taken into consideration by the trial Court and having not found favour with the contentions and pleas taken by the defendant, rejected the same and upheld the contentions of the plaintiff and decreed the suit by directing the defendant to hand over possession of the suit schedule property. The same was re-appreciated and re-analysed by the appellate Court once again and having not found favour with the appellant/defendant, the appeal also came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and

¶119

decree rendered by the trial Court, which according to the respondent/ plaintiff does not call for interference and

¶120

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

there is no necessity or need for framing substantial

¶123

questions of law.

¶124

6.2 In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. -vs- Kaki & Ors . reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2404, to canvass the argument that once a judgment is rendered by the trial Court and the appellate Court confirms the same, the scope and interference of this Court under Section 100 of CPC is very limited and narrow and once there is a concurrent finding of fact, the appellate Court in second appeal should hardly interfere and show less interference in such cases. Only if there is any substantial question of law that is made out by the appellant and make out a very strong case of perversity in the judgment rendered by both the Courts on facts, then only there is scope for interference by this Court.

¶125

16 -

¶126

NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

¶129

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶130

The point that arises for consideration in the

¶131

present appeal is:

¶132

"Whether the appellant has made out any ground calling for interference and framing substantial questions of law ?

¶133

Apparently, it is seen that the plaintiff relies upon a registered sale deed dated 01.02.2007 for having purchased the suit schedule property measuring to an extent of 2 acres 36 guntas, excluding 6 guntas of the kharab land, of which eastern portion of 1 acre consisting of arecanut trees and teak trees. Defendant has taken several pleas to controvert the statement made by the plaintiff and dislodge the case of the plaintiff and the trial Court dealt with elaborately with regard to each of the contentions of the defendant. The trial Court, upon careful

¶134

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

consideration of the materials placed on record, found cogent materials in favour of the plaintiff and was not convinced with the plea and defence taken by the defendant, where multiple contradictory stands were taken. Accordingly, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property within three months.

¶137

The first appellate Court upon reconsideration of the materials once again, did not find favour with the appellant/ defendant and being satisfied with the materials placed on record by the plaintiff, did not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the defendant/appellant and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶138

In my opinion, the judgment relied by the

¶139

learned counsel for the appellant may not be applicable to the present facts of the case as it is not pleaded by the

¶140

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

defendant with regard to any adverse possession and neither is any issue framed by the trial Court to that effect and no evidence has been adduced as well. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have elaborately dealt with the facts of the matter and it may not be permissible for this Court to further venture into eliciting the evidentiary material already dealt with by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court sitting in the second appeal under Section 100 CPC. What requires to be seen is whether there is any perversity or illegality committed by the trial Court or the first appellate Court. In my opinion, the judgments rendered by both the Courts do not call for any interference.

¶143

Having heard learned counsels for both parties, more specifically the counsel for the appellant with regard to framing of substantial question of law, I do not find any such reason or cogent material to frame substantial question of law, as there is no such question exists to be framed in the present case on hand.

¶144

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶145

HC-KAR

¶146

Section 100 of CPC deals with the Scope and

¶147

powers of the Appellate Court. It is a no more res integra to state that the powers as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited. This Court, in several catena of judgments, has held that the Appellate Court sitting in the second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless there is perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. When two Courts have already considered the question of fact and the question of law to a large extent in detail, even if this Court finds third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both Courts, it is a general Rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record.

¶148

The question of framing of substantial questions

¶149

of law would depend upon if there is any illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as

¶150

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:18280 RSA No. 1467 of 2016

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

well as the first appellate Court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts and having gone through the records, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgments rendered by both the Courts. The appellants have not made out any good ground for this Court to frame any substantial question of law, as no such question of law, in my opinion, exists to be framed to decide the case on hand. The reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by both the Courts are just and proper. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments rendered by both the Courts.

¶153