- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 147 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI S RADHAKRISHNA S/O LATE C V SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT HOUSE No. 475/426 SHETTIBALAJIGARA BEEDHI RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANTOSH PRASAD J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M MAHESHA @ MANJU S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SHETTIBALAJIGARA BEEDHI RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. 2. SRI SOMEGOWDA S/O HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT JEDENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANGARA - 562 159. 3. SRI CHAND S/O D SHANTILAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 R/AT M G ROAD RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA - 562 159. 4. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT GANIGARAPALYA TALAGATPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R2, R3, R4 ARE SERVED V/O DTD. 19.2.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S.) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.20/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.No.416/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed in R.A. No. 20/2020 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and the judgment and preliminary - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 decree dated 28.01.2020 passed in O.S. No. 416/2012 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. 3. Appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Originally, the property under survey No. 109/1 measuring 04 acre 4 guntas in Vaderahalli Village was belonged to one Sri. C.V. Srinivasaiah and his sister Smt. Lakshmidevamma. It is contended that after the purchase of the said land, Sri. C.V. Srinivasaiah and Smt. Lakshmidevamma, divided the property and survey No. 109/1 was phoded as survey No. 109/1A measuring 1 acre 24 guntas and survey No. 109/1B measuring 2 acre 20 guntas. The plaintiff is the biological son of Sri. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 Muniyappa and Smt. Lakshmidevamma. Plaintiff was taken in adoption by Sri. C.V. Srinivasaiah and Smt. Chinnamma and was brought up by them as their son. After the demise of Sri. C.V. Srinivasaiah, the plaintiff, instituted a suit in O.S. No. 35/1993 against Smt. Chinnamma, for partition of the property left by deceased Sri. C.V. Srinivasaiah. As per the decree passed in the said suit, final decree proceedings was filed. In the said proceedings, out of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in survey No. 109/1B, an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas was allotted to the plaintiff’s share with the following boundaries: East – Road West – land of Krishnappa in survey No. 114 North – Land of Krishnappa and road South – share of Smt. Chinnamma Remaining 1 acre 10 guntas of land in the said survey number fell to the share of Smt. Chinnamma as per the final decree. Khatha was made separately in the names of the plaintiff and Smt. Chinnamma. Subsequently, Smt. Chinnamma illegally got khatha of the entire extent of land entered in her name. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 plaintiff, aggrieved by the khatha in the name of Smt. Chinnamma, approached the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities passed an order for the restoration of the plaintiff’s name. Smt. Chinnamma died on 11.12.2006. After the demise of Smt. Chinnamma the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire extent of 2 acre 20 guntas of land in survey No. 109/1B including the share of Smt. Chinnamma. The defendants have no right, title or interest over any portion of the suit schedule property. They are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff made an enquiry and came to know that on 16.10.2006, a sale deed was registered in favour of defendant No. 2 alleged to have been executed by deceased Smt. Chinnamma and defendant No. 1. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 5. Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement contending that defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Sri. C.V. Srinivasaiah and Smt. Chinnamma and the sale deeds dated 05.09.2005 and 12.10.2006 were executed in favour of Sri. R. Narayana Swamy. Said Sri. R. Narayana Swamy, in turn, has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 sold the said property in favor of defendant No. 1. The suit is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that defendant No. 2 purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2006 from defendant No. 1 and his mother, Smt. Chinnamma for valid consideration. 6. Defendant No. 2 is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land in survey No. 109/1B measuring 1 acre 10 guntas of Vaderahalli village having the following boundaries. East - Government Road West - Land of Krishnappa in survey No. 14 North - Land of Krishnappa and road South - remaining land is survey number 109/1B 7. It is contended that the defendants are not parties in the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession and the decree passed in the said suit is not binding on the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal before the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for effecting the khata in the name of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff preferred a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. Said revision petition was dismissed. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and hence prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and examined one witness as PW2. PW2 was not subjected to the cross-examination. The plaintiff marked the 24 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. On the other hand, defendant No. 2 was examined as DW1, examined 3 witnesses as DW2 to DW4 and got marked 21 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D21. The trial Court, after recording evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit with cost, by judgment dated 28.01.2020. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 416/2012 preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 20/2020. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 9. The first appellate Court, after reassessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 30.09.2022. The plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned judgments has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 10. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Sri. C.V. Srinivasaiah and Smt. Chinnamma. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 35/1993 against Smt. Chinnamma for partition and separate possession. Said suit ended in compromise and compromise decree was drawn. He submits that the final decree proceedings are filed in FDP No. 3/2023. In the said suit for partition, the plaintiff has got 1 acre 10 guntas, and it was renumbered as survey No. 109/1B. The remaining 1 acre 10 guntas of land was allotted to the share of Smt. Chinnamma. He submits that after the demise of Smt. Chinnamma, the plaintiff, being the adopted son of Smt. Chinnamma and Sri. Srinivasaiah, has succeeded to the properties of Smt. Chinnamma. He became the absolute owner of entire 2 acres - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 20 guntas of land in survey No. 109/1B. He submits that the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within time. He submits that the plaintiff did not have the knowledge regarding the sale deeds, executed by defendant No. 1 and Smt. Chinnamma. The plaintiff came to know about the said fact recently. Hence, he submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within time and on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 13. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the plaint averments in examination-in-chief. To prove that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property based on the judgment passed in O.S. No. 35/1993, produced Ex.P.7, the certified copy of the decree passed in final decree proceedings FDP No. 3/2003. A perusal of the final decree passed in FDP No. 3/2003 discloses that land in survey No. 109/1B was divided into two parts, i.e., - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 1 acre 10 guntas of land was allotted to the share of the plaintiff with the following boundaries: East - road West - land of Krishnappa in survey number 114 North - land of Krishnappa and road South - share of Smt. Chinnamma in same survey number 14. The remaining 1 acre 10 guntas was allotted the share of Smt. Chinnamma. As per the final decree passed in FDP No. 3/2003, the names of the plaintiff and Smt. Chinnamma was entered in the new records. Smt. Chinnamma died on 11.12.2006. During the lifetime of Smt. Chinnamma, along with the defendant No. 1, sold her share in favor of defendant No. 2 under the registered sale deed. Defendant No. 2 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed executed by Smt. Chinnamma and defendant No. 1. Said sale deed was executed on 16.10.2006, and the plaintiff has filed this suit on 30.12.2012. The plaintiff had knowledge regarding the execution of the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 registered sale deed by Smt. Chinnamma and defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in 2006. Registration of the document gives a notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to the transaction relating to an immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to the document thereby preventing forgeries and frauds regarding the transaction and the execution of the registration. The Hon’ble Apex Court In the case of Smt. Uma Devi and others Vs. Anand Kumar and others, SLP (Civil) 2137/2025 disposed of on 02.04.2025 has held as under: "12. In the case at hand, partition took place way back in the year 1968, which is evident from the revenue record entries. The suit is filed in the year 2023, i.e., after a period of 55 years. Further, many of the family members had executed registered sale deeds in the year 1978. These sale deeds have been attached, and on perusal it is observed that these were in fact registered sale deeds. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 MANU/SC/1222/2011: 2011:INSC:739: (2012) 1 SCC 656 held as under: Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified. 13. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years." 15. Admittedly the sale deed was executed in the year 2006 and the suit was filed in the year 2012 i.e. after a period of more than 6 years. Hence, the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the limitation. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record. The first appellate Court, placing - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:14946 RSA No. 147 of 2023 reliance on the judgments of this Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has rightly affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; O R D E R i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No. 2/2023 does not survive the consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2/2023 is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15