Jagannatha Rao Vs K. Nanjaiah

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.362 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

JAGANNATHA RAO S/O.KRISHNOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NANDIHALLI CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK-572 117 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

K.NANJAIAH

¶10

S/O.M.N.KALAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT SRI LAKSHIRANGANATHA NILAYA DEVARAYAPATNA NEW EXTENSION TUMAKURU CITY-577 201

¶11

KRISHNOJI RAO

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O.LATE GANGOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶14

GAJENDRA RAO S/O.KRISHNOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶15

MALATHI BAI D/O.KRISHNOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶16

SMT.BABY BAI W/O.JAGANNATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R-2 TO R-5 ARE R/AT NANDIHALLI CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 117

¶21

SMT.RANO BAI W/O.RANOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶22

SMT.SAROJA BAI W/O.LATE ESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶23

PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O.LATE ESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶24

ARUNKUMAR S/O.LATE ESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶25

R-6 TO R-9 ARE R/AT BARANDUR JANATHA COLONY NEW EXTENSION BARANDUR POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 245

¶26

SMT.RENUKAMMA W/O.LATE SHIVAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶27

ANANDA S/O.LATE SHIVAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶28

R-10 & R-11 ARE R/AT CHANDANAHALLI DASANAKATTE MALEGERE POST BIKKODU HOBII

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2020 BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8/2014 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI.

¶34

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

Heard Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, learned counsel

¶37

appearing on behalf of the appellant.

¶38

This appeal is preferred by defendant No.7 in O.S.No.8/2014 aggrieved by the judgment and decree

¶39

dated 21.11.2019 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, whereby the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and also declared the sale deed dated 11.07.1988 executed by the sons of Ranoji Rao in favour of Krishnoji Rao as not binding on the plaintiff and the defendants in

¶40

the suit were also restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties

¶45

in any manner.

¶46

Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶47

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶48

The properties bearing Sy.Nos.40/2 and 40/4 originally belonged to the sons of Sathroji Rao namely, Hanumantha Rao and Ranoji Rao. Both of them have divided the joint family properties on 19.03.1962. The suit schedule properties fell to the share of Ranoji Rao. This being the state of affairs, Ranoji Rao acting as a guardian

¶49

to his minor sons, namely, Eshwara Rao, Shivaji Rao and Yashwantha Rao, sold the suit schedule properties to the father of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.1962. Pursuant to which, though mutation was

¶50

effected in the name of the father of the plaintiff vide M.R.No.21/1962, the name of the father of the plaintiff

¶51

was not incorporated in the RTC due to the negligence of

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

the revenue officials. Taking advantage of the fact that the

¶55

name of the father of the plaintiff was not incorporated in the RTC, the sons of Late Ranoji Rao, after attaining the majority, sold the same property to one Krishnoji Rao, who is defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 11.07.1988.

¶56

4.1 It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant

¶57

Nos.4 to 8 had partitioned the properties. Based on the partition, mutation was effected in their names illegally. The father of the plaintiff meanwhile challenged the revenue entries in RRT appeal and the same came to be dismissed on the ground that the question of ownership is in dispute and the same has to be decided by the Civil Court. After dismissal of the RRT appeal, defendant Nos.4 to 8 attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession by denying their ownership over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking to declare that the registered sale deed dated 11.07.1988 to be illegal and not binding on the plaintiff

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

and consequently, the relief of permanent injunction

¶62

against the defendants.

¶63

4.2 Upon summons being issued in the suit to the defendants, the defendants appeared and filed written statement.

¶64

4.3 On the basis of the pleadings and rival contentions made by both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

¶65

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves his absolute ownership over the suit schedule properties?

¶66

2. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule properties?

¶67

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated:11.07.1988 executed by the sons of Ranoji Rao is not binding on the plaintiff?

¶68

4. Whether the defendants prove that, defendant No.2 and his brother had valid title to sell the properties bearing Sy.No.40/2 and 40/4 to the 4^th defendant?

¶69

5. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?

¶70

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for?

¶71

7 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for?

¶75

8. What order or decree?"

¶76

4.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to

¶77

establish the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked 17 documents as per Exs.P1 to P17 on his behalf. Whereas, defendant No.5 examined himself as DW.1 and also two other witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked 40 documents as per Exs.D1 to D40.

¶78

4.5 Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, upon adjudicating the matter decreed the suit of the plaintiff by nullifying the sale deed dated 11.07.1988 and the same is not binding on the plaintiff and the defendants were restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit schedule properties.

¶79

8 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

4.6 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

¶83

decree of the trial Court, defendant Nos.4 to 8 preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court in

¶84

R.A.No.34/2020.

¶85

4.7 The first Appellate Court, after issuing notice to the respondents-defendants and on consideration of the materials placed before the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court in order to re-appreciate and re-analyse the entire materials available on record and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, formulated the following points for consideration:

¶86

"1. Is the trial court correct in holding that the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit schedule properties?

¶87

2. Is the trial court correct in holding that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties?

¶88

3. Is the trial court correct in holding that the sale deed dated 11.07.1988 executed by the sons of Ranoji Rao not binding upon the plaintiff?

¶89

4. Whether the suit is barred by time?

¶90

9 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

5. Whether the present suit for declaration of title without seeking the relief of possession is not maintainable?

¶94

6. Whether the interference of this court is called for in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court?

¶95

7. What order or decree?"

¶96

4.8 The first Appellate Court, after carefully analysing the evidence, both oral and documentary and after considering the arguments submitted by learned counsels for parties, found no flaw or error committed by the trial Court and did not find favour with defendant Nos.4 to 8 and accordingly, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in

¶97

O.S.No.8/2014.

¶98

4.9 Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.7 is before this Court in this second appeal.

¶99

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel appearing for appellant-defendant No.7 that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have committed a gross

¶100

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

error, illegality and perversity and have failed to

¶103

appreciate the materials placed on record, so also, both the Courts have failed to take into consideration the question of limitation. Hence, the judgment and decree rendered by both the Courts are illegal and requires to be set aside.

¶104

5.1 It is also contended by learned counsel that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have failed to take into consideration the partition deed executed amongst the members of the family, where the children of Ranoji Rao were also given a share and the trial Court has committed an error in not taking into consideration that the sale deed dated 31.03.1962 was executed by Ranoji Rao as a guardian to his minor children. Therefore, without

¶105

taking into consideration that the children were minor and were not the persons who had executed the sale deed, the second sale deed executed in favour of the defendants dated 11.07.1988 could not have been questioned and the same ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court

¶106

11 -

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

and confirmed by the first Appellate Court. It is also contended that the said sale deed dated 11.07.1988 was executed after the children of Ranoji Rao had attained majority and they had all the right and title to sell the property to whomsoever they wanted, which is accordingly done by them in favour of the defendants and the same has not been appreciated by both the Courts. On these grounds, he seeks this Court to frame substantial questions of law, as the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have not considered the aforementioned crucial aspects while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶110

The respondents herein are not served with the notice yet and this Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents, as this Court is not inclined to show any indulgence to pass any order in favour of the appellant-defendant No.7 for the following reasons:

¶111

Apparently, there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the sale deed dated 31.03.1962 executed by

¶112

12 -

¶113

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

Ranoji Rao as a guardian of his minor children namely, Eshwara Rao, Shivaji Rao, Yashwantha Rao in favour of father of the plaintiff. Thereafter, mutation was also effected in favour of the father of the plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that after attaining the age of majority, the children of Ranoji Rao have executed a sale deed dated 11.07.1988 in favour of one Krishnoji Rao i.e. defendant No.4.

¶116

In view of the above, the points that require

¶117

consideration before this Court are-

¶118

"(i) Whether the appellant-defendant No.7 has made out any case warranting interference of this Court?

¶119

(ii) Whether any substantial questions of law are required to be framed?"

¶120

The trial Court and the first Appellate Court have

¶121

dealt with the matter in detail. The issues are framed by the trial Court in the suit including the relevance on the binding effect of the sale deed dated 11.07.1988 with regard to the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit

¶122

13 -

¶123

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

schedule properties, the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the properties and the plaintiff was entitled for declaration and injunction relief.

¶126

Having considered the entire gamut of material placed before the Court, the trial Court agreed with the material evidence placed on record, both oral and documentary and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

¶127

Upon challenge made by defendant Nos.4 to 8 before the first Appellate Court, despite urging the very same grounds that are argued in this appeal, the first Appellate Court did not find favour with defendant Nos.4 to 8. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Now, defendant No.7 is before this Court challenging the said judgments and decree passed by both the Courts.

¶128

14 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

Nothing different has been pleaded or argued

¶132

except stating that the substantial question of law arises for consideration as the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have not taken into consideration the sale deed dated 11.07.1988, which is an independent document and the vendors i.e. the children of Ranoji Rao had right, title and interest over the properties and they had the right to alienate the properties as they had attained majority. The first Appellate Court, while reconsidering and re-appreciating the materials, had adverted to these very same questions urged before the first Appellate Court and the same was answered in the negative.

¶133

Section 100 of CPC deals with the Scope and 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

¶134

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:12652 RSA No. 362 of 2025

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. Even if this Court were to take a different opinion other than what is already stated by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, such opinion should generally not been taken or imposed when already two Courts have dealt with the question of fact and question of law that would arise for consideration. However, in the present case on hand, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have dealt with all the questions elaborately and did not find favour with the defendants, much less defendant No.7, who is in appeal before this Court. Therefore, the question of framing of substantial questions of law would depend upon whether there is any illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court.

¶137

Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason made out by defendant No.7, the appellant herein to frame substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal as both the Courts have

¶138