- 1 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1515 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SHRI R K VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O R KANNAIAH, R/AT NO.9/1, 2ND CROSS, IST MAIN BOOPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 094. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, 2. SMT ANURADHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 3. SMT VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 4. SRI JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 5. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 6. KUM VANAJA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 7. KUM BINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.17/A, NARASIMHAIAH COLONY ROAD, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, RMV II STAGE, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 094. 8. SMT M SHANTHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI SOMASHEKAR R/AT NO.6, 15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,BANGALORE-560 003. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADV. FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R6, SRI N C NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8, R3 AND R7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.11277/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05TH MARCH, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 CAV JUDGMENT This first appeal is under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff whose suit in O.S No.11277/2006 for declaration and injunction is dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018, is in appeal. 2. The suit is filed in respect of immovable property described as site bearing No.10, V.P.Khata No.109 and 109/A, having Assessment No.3/3, situated at Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West:35 feet and North-South:46 feet, totally measuring 1610 square feet with a shed and a compound wall built around it. The boundaries are described as under: East :Property No.11 belongs to Udayashankar West :Property No.9 belongs to Sri Sampath and Lakshmipathi North :Road South :Sterling Apartments property belong to M.Anjanamurthy. 3. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 26.11.2001 executed by defendants No.1 to 7 - 4 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 in favour of defendant No.8 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. 4. In addition, the plaintiff also seeks a declaration of title to declare him as the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also sought injunction against the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and a restraint order from alienating the suit schedule property. 5. This case was heard along with RFA Nos.1514/2018, 1516/2018, 1517/2018, 1518/2018, 1519/2018 and 1520/2018. During the hearing, the counsel appearing for both sides submitted that, certain transactions evidenced in the registered sale deeds filed in RFA No.1514/2018 arising from O.S No.11276/2006 are not in dispute. Thus, while narrating the facts of the case, the Court has also taken note of the sale transactions evidenced in O.S No.11276/2006, in respect of Sy.No.3/3 as the parties to the proceeding are claiming right over the sites formed in Sy.No.3/3 in all the cases referred to above. 6. The property bearing Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in Lottegollahalli Village originally belonged to - 5 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 Hanumanthappa. Said Hanumanthappa had two wives namely; Byamma and Thayamma. It appears that both marriages are valid and from both wives Hanumanthappa had children and among them, a son from first wife Byamma was named as Narasimhaiah and a son from second wife Thayamma was also named as Narasimhaiah. 7. The plaintiff claims that there was an oral partition in the family during lifetime of Hanumanthappa and in the said oral partition, Narasimhaiah son of Hanumanthappa from first wife Byamma was allotted 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Survey No.3/3. Said 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Survey No.3/3 was later sold by Narasimhaiah-son of Byamma to Muniswamappa under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1956. 8. The plaintiff further claims that Muniswamappa sold Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas to one Ranganayakamma under a registered sale deed 07.03.1957 and Ranganayakamma in turn sold the land to Narasimhaiah, the son from second wife Thayamma under a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1963. 9. Further, the plaintiff asserts that Narasimhaiah son of second wife Thayamma sold the entire 1 acre 13 guntas in - 6 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 Sy.No.3/3 to Tirupathappa under a registered sale deed dated 08.08.1963 and said Tirupathappa formed several sites in 1 acre 13 guntas and retained few sites and sold few sites. 10. The plaintiff claims that, after the demise of Tirupathappa, his two sons T.Venkatesh and T.Rangaswamy succeeded to the estate of Tirupathappa and the aforementioned two sons executed a power of attorney in favour of Srinivasa Murthy. The power of attorney holder - Srinivas Murthy, and children of one of the principals T.Venkatesh who died on 14.01.2005 sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 18.08.2006. 11. Thus, the plaintiff claims title and possession over the aforementioned property and further alleges that the registered sale deed dated 26.11.2001 executed by defendants No.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.8 is not binding on the plaintiff. 12. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, defendants No.1 to 7, who are the legal representatives of deceased Narasimhaiah from the second wife did not have any right, title and interest over the property as Narasimhaiah the son from - 7 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 second wife Thayamma had sold 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.3/3 to Tirupathappa. 13. Defendants No.1 to 7, the vendors of defendant No.8 the purchaser, contested the suit. 14. The defendants/vendors contended that, Tirupathappa though purchased 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.3/3 did not own and possess the suit property. Tirupathappa had sold all the sites formed by him. Defendants No.1 to 7 inherited certain sites formed by Narasimhaiah, the son from the second wife of Hanumanthappa, in 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy.No.3/3, and 37 guntas in Sy.No.3/2. And the sale transaction in favour of defendant No.8 is prior to the sale in favour of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 15. Defendant No.8 also took a similar stand. 16. The Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff prove that the sale deed dated 26.11.2001 is null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff? - 8 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 3. Whether the plaintiff proves interference of defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as sought in the plaint? 5. Whether the suit is properly valued and the Court fee paid is sufficient? 6.. What order or decree?” 17. In addition, the following additional issue is also framed. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for?” 18. The Trial Court has held that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and his vendors' title and dismissed the suit. The Trial Court also held that the power of attorney is not proved. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant urged that, the Trial Court did not consider the case in proper perspective. 20. It is urged that the plaintiff's sale transaction under the registered sale deed dated 18.08.2006 is duly established. The title of defendant No.8 is not established as the title of - 9 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 defendants No.1 to 7 is also not established. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that PW.2 has admitted in the cross-examination that he has no claim over the property purchased by Ranganayakamma. In addition, it is urged that the plaintiff has established that the property purchased by the plaintiff was formed in the land sold by Ranganayakamma. 21. Learned counsel would also refer to Ex.D.8 - the notice issued by the legal representatives of Narasimhaiah - the son from the second wife Thayamma. The said notice is issued to defendant No.8 wherein it is stated that the property sold under the registered sale deed dated 26.11.2001 to defendant No.8 is wrongly referred to as the property purchased by Narasimhaiah from Ranganayakamma. And in the said notice, the vendors also asserted that the property sold is part of Sy.No.3/3 and Sy.No.3/2 purchased by Narasimhaiah from Byrappa and B.V.Shambulingappa under registered sale deeds dated 11.12.1956 and 07.04.1965 and asked the purchaser to get the sale deed rectified. 22. Referring to this notice, it is urged that defendant No.8 did not get the sale deed rectified and the sale deed in the name of defendant No.8 would reveal that the property sold - 10 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 was acquired by the vendors' predecessor Narasimhaiah from Ranganayakamma. Thus, the learned counsel would urge that the purchaser did not acquire right over the property as admittedly, the property purchased from Ranganayakamma is sold to Tirupathappa on 08.3.1963. 23. It is also urged that the suit being one for declaration of title and injunction, where the plaintiff and the contesting defendants claimed title over the property, it was also incumbent upon the defendants to establish their title based on the evidence led, applying the test of preponderance of probability. 24. In addition, it is urged that the records produced by the plaintiff would demonstrate that the property was acquired by Tirupathappa and later inherited by his two children T.Rangaswamy and T.Venkatesh. The plaintiff having acquired title of the property through the sale deed executed by power of attorney holder of T.Rangaswamy viz., Srinivas Murthy, and also children of T.Venkatesh, has not only established possession of the property but also established the title. 25. It is further urged by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant that, the defendants have not - 11 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 produced any records to show the formation of sites and layout by Narasimhaiah, the son from the second wife Thayamma. That being the position, the Trial Court could not have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced the documents relating to formation of layout by Tirupathappa. 26. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would urge that, the plaintiff approached the Trial Court seeking a declaration of title and the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case and the Trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has not established the title over the property and consequently dismissed the suit. 27. Learned counsel for respondents would also urge that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.8 is earlier to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. And the said sale deeds in favour of defendant No.8 is executed by legal representatives of deceased Narasimhaiah, the son from the second wife-Thayamma, who had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.3/3 measuring 01 acre 02 guntas from Byrappa under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1956 (Ex.P4). - 12 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 28. It is also urged that, 37 guntas in Survey No.3/2 and 31 guntas in Survey No.3/3 were sold to one Lingamma and she reconveyed the aforementioned properties to Narasimhaiah, the son from the second wife. The said transaction is evidenced in registered sale deed dated 07.04.1965 and would urge that the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit (Ex. D.33). 29. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 30. The following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether the plaintiff/appellant establishes title and possession over the suit property based on the registered sale deed dated 18.08.2006? (b) Whether the defendants No.8/respondent No.8 establishes title and possession over the suit property based on the registered sale deed dated 26.11.2001? (c) Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? 31. Certain transactions covered by registered sale deeds are not in dispute. The registered sale deed dated 24.09.1947, executed by Narasimhaiah, where he is shown to be resident of Nagashettyhalli, pertains to 1 acre 2 guntas in - 13 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 Survey No.3/3. The said document marked as Exhibit P.12 reveals that Seetappa as the purchaser. Said Seetappa reconveyed the same property on 21.04.1950 in favour of Narasimhaiah, resident of Nagashettyhalli as can be seen from Exhibit P.13. 32. Subsequently, Narasimhaiah conveyed entire extent of 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy.No.3/3 in favour of Byrappa under a registered sale deed dated 28.05.1951, marked as Exhibit P.14. 33. It is further seen that, under a registered sale deed dated 12.05.1955, Narasimhaiah, the son of Hanumanthappa through his first wife, purchased 11 guntas of land from his father, Hanumanthappa, and the children born through father’s second wife. The said document is marked as Exhibit P.15. 34. Under another registered sale deed dated 11.12.1956 at Exhibit P.16, Narasimhaiah purchased 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Survey No.3/3 from the previous owner, Byrappa. In the said document, the purchaser is described as a resident of Nagashettyhalli. 35. Significantly, on the very same day, another registered sale deed, marked as Exhibit P.4, came to be - 14 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 executed, wherein the vendor Narasimhaiah is described as the elder son of Hanumanthappa, and an extent of 1 acre and 13 guntas of land are conveyed in favour of Muniswamappa. 36. A comparative reading of these contemporaneous transactions leads to a reasonable inference that, the vendor in the sale deed dated 11.12.1956 (Exhibit P.4) is Narasimhaiah, son of Hanumanthappa through his first wife Byamma, whereas the purchaser under the sale deed of the same date (marked as Exhibit P.16) is Narasimhaiah, son of Hanumanthappa through his second wife Thayamma. 37. It is also relevant to note that, the extent of 1 acre 13 guntas purchased by Muniswamappa under the registered sale deed dated 11.12.1956 was subsequently conveyed to Ranganayakamma under two registered sale deeds dated 07.03.1957 and 17.07.1958, marked as Exhibits P.5 and P.17 respectively. Though the extent of the land in the two sale deeds referred to above add up to 1 acre 13½ guntas, same will not have any bearing on the final outcome of the suit as Muniswamappa who had purchased 1 acre 13 guntas from Narasimhaiah can convey only 1 acre 13 guntas through Ranganayakamma. Said Ranganayakamma in turn has sold - 15 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 only 1 acre 13 guntas to Narasimhaiah, the son from second wife under registered sale deed dated 07.08.1963. The said document is marked at Exhibiti-P6. 38. Later on 08.08.1963 Narasimhaiah-the son from second wife Thayamma, sold 1 acre 13 guntas to Tirupathappa. In the said sale deed at Exhibit-P.7, it is mentioned that seller is the son from second wife of Hanumantappa. 39. Thus, it can be noticed that, the Survey No.3/3 was subject matter of several transactions starting from 1947 onwards. It is also evident that the transactions in respect of Survey No.3/3 referred to above fall in two different chunks of lands, one measuring 1 acre 2 guntas and another measuring 1 acre 13 guntas. 40. The land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas was purchased by Narasimhaiah, the son from second wife-Thayamma under the sale deed executed by Byrappa on 11.12.1956. This portion of land was retained by Narasimhaiah-the son from the second wife. The another chunk of land measuring 1 acre 13 guntas was initially sold by Narasimhaiah-the son from first wife and property was sold to Muniswamappa. As already noticed, Muniswamappa sold the same to Ranganayakamma and later, - 16 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 said property measuring 1 acre 13 guntas was purchased by Narasimhaiah- the son from second wife and later sold to Tirupathappa who purchased under a registered sale deed dated 08.08.1963. 41. Admittedly, the plaintiff is claiming that the suit site falls within 1 acre 13 guntas of land purchased by Tirupathappa. The defendants essentially claimed that Tirupathappa sold all the sites during his lifetime and his children did not inherit any site in Survey No.3/3 and the plaintiff cannot claim any right under the sale deeds executed by children of Tirupathappa. 42. The defendants also claim that the property sold to defendant No.8 by defendants No.1 to 7 under the sale deed which is under challenge, is the site formed in Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas or Survey No.3/2 measuring 27 guntas which belong to Narasimhaiah-the son from second wife Thayamma. 43. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff would urge that admission of DW.2 in the cross-examination that he has no claim over the property of Ranganayakamma would come to the aid of the plaintiff and the suit has to be decreed - 17 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 based on the said admission, the Court is of the view that the said admission is not sufficient to grant a decree for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has not established that the suit property is part of 1 acre 13 guntas purchased by Tirupathappa from Narasimhaiah. The recital in the sale deed dated 26.11.2001 that the vendors' predecessor purchased the property from Ranganayakamma is not sufficient to take a view that the suit property was part of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas sold by Narasimhaiah to Tirupathappa. 44. It is to be noticed Exhibit D.8 is the notice by the vendors to defendant No.8 to get the recital in the said sale deed referred to above rectified, to recite that the property sold is part of Sy.No.3/3 and Sy.No.3/2 purchased from Byrappa and Shambulingappa. Merely because the purchaser has not got the sale deed rectified, it does not mean that the property purchased by defendant No.8 is part of Sy.No.3/3 sold by Ranganayakamma. It can be part of Sy.No.3/3 purchased by Narasimhaiah as well. 45. The above said view is also substantiated from the fact that there is no record produced by the plaintiff to show that after the demise of Tirupathappa, some sites including the - 18 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 suit site are inherited by Tirupathappa's children. Unless, the plaintiff produces records to show that Tirupathappa died leaving behind the suit site and his children inherited the suit site, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's contention that plaintiff has purchased the site from children and grand children of Tirupathappa under registered sale deed dated 18.08.2006. 46. In the cross-examination, PW.2 has stated that, he has records to show that on 06.03.1991 there was a partition between children of Thirupatappa. Partition deed is not produced. Even mutation relating to alleged partition is produced. P.W.1 claims to have obtained encumbrance certificate before the purchase, however, that is not produced. 47. All these circumstances come in the way of accepting the plaintiff's contention that the suit has to be decreed based on the recital in the sale deed in the name of defendant No.8. Since, no records are produced to show that Tirupatappa died leaving behind the suit property, the plaintiff cannot rest his case solely on the recital in the sale deed which is said to be erroneous by the vendors. The plaintiff has not produced the materials to hold that the recital in the sale deed in the name of defendant that the property is purchased from - 19 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 Ranganayakamma is proved. The plaintiff is only relying on the circumstance where the defendant No.8 has not taken steps to get the sale deed rectified. 48. P.W.2 has admitted that no records were produced to show that Tirupathappa held the suit sites and his children inherited the suit sites. In the cross examination Pw1 has also stated that he has documents to show the boundaries of the suit property but has not produced any document other than the sale deed which is disputed by the defendants and the boundary mentioned in the sale deed cannot be referred to identify the property which according to the plaintiff is falling in 1 acre 13 guntas of Sy.No.3/3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff was required to produce the sketch pertaining to the suit property to show that the said property falls within 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.3/3 or any other acceptable document, other than the sale deed, to prove the boundary. 49. The Trial Court has observed that, the plaintiff has not produced records to show that, as of the date of the suit or as on the date of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the property was standing in the name of the plaintiff or his vendors respectively. The encumbrance certificate as on - 20 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 the date of the execution of the sale deed was also not in the name of the plaintiff's vendors. The khata was not standing in the name of the plaintiff's vendors. In addition, the Trial Court has also noticed that no documents are produced to hold that plaintiff's vendors namely T.Rangaswamy and T.Venkatesh, the children of Tirupathappa inherited the property after the demise of Tirupathappa. 50. The plaintiff claims that Tirupathappa had formed sites in Sy. No.3/3 measuring 1 acre and 13 guntas. This contention that the Tirupathappa formed sites is not in dispute. The plaintiff's claim that Tirupathappa sold certain sites and retained some is disputed by the defendants. The defendants contend that the Tirupathappa sold all the sites formed by him and when he died, his children did not inherit any sites in Survey No.3/3. 51. The plaintiff has also not produced any records relating to formation of layout by Tirupathappa which could have thrown light as to how many sites were formed by Tirupathappa. The plaintiff has also not produced the sale deeds said to have been executed by Tirupathappa in respect of sites formed in Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas. Had the plaintiff revealed as to how many sites have been formed, - 21 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 sold and retained by Tirupathappa, the Court would have been in a position to ascertain as to whether Tirupathappa had retained any sites, which eventually would be inherited by his two children namely T.Rangaswamy and T.Venkatesh. However, it is not done. 52. In addition, it is required to be noticed that, the records viz., encumbrance certificates, electricity bills marked at Exhibits D.9 to D.13, D.19 to D.30, D.34, would indicate that the suit site was standing in the name of defendants No.1 to 7, when they executed the sale deed in the name of defendant No.8, and after the execution of the sale deed, the katha was changed in the name of the purchaser namely defendant No.8. 53. The Court is concurring with the view of the Trial Court which has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish the title of his vendors. 54. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has urged that, even the defendants have failed to produce the plan of the layout said to have been formed by Narasimhaiah, the son from the second wife, on preponderance of probability, the Court is of the view that, there are materials to hold that the property records stood in - 22 - RFA No. 1515 of 2018 the name of the defendants No.1 to 7 when the sale deed was executed by defendants No.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.8. 55. The plaintiff has produced the judgment passed by the Civil Courts in respect of some property. The judgment is of no consequence as the present defendants/respondents or their predecessors were not parties to the said proceeding. Thus, the said judgment does not operate against or bind the defendants. It is also noticed that the judgment is not pertaining to the suit property. 56. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/CHS/GVP