- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHARADAMMA, W/O LATE VIRUPAKSHEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS, 1(a) SMT VASANTHA KUMARI, W/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KACHIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK - 573115. 1(b) SMT HEMAVATHI, W/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KACHIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK - 573115. 1(c) SRI NAGARAJA, S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KACHIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK - 573115. 1(d) SRI KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KACHIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 BELUR TALUK - 573115. 1(e) SRI BALARAME GOWDA, S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KACHIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK - 573115. 1(f) SMT SHYLAJA, W/O SHANTHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KARIGADALU VILLAGE, BICCODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK - 573 115. 1(g) SMT GAJATHRI, W/O THIHIJAKSHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ALUR TALUK - 573 213. 1(h) SRI DAYANANDA, S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KACHIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK - 573 115. 1(i) SMT JYOTHI, W/O DHARMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT HALTHORE VILLAGE, MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK - 573 115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI AND SRI MURALIDHARA R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ABDUAL RASHEED, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 S/O HUSSAIAH KHAN, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT BANTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK. 2. SRI SEETHARAMU, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR 2(a) SMT SEETHAMMA, W/O LATE SEETHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, GUNIKERE STREET, BELUR TOWN, BELUR, SINCE 2(a) DECEASED REPRESNETED BY HER LR'S RESPONDENT NO.4(a) AND RESPONDENT NO.5, PRESENTLY BY 5(a) to (d) 3. SRI B N DHARMARAJU, S/O NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O RAYAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK. 4. B G MANJAPPA, S/O GUTTEGOWDA, SINCE DIED BY HIS LR'S 4(a) SRI B M RANGANATH, S/O LATE B G MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, R/AT SIDDESWARA STREET, FORT BELUR. 5. SRI B G NARAGAJ, S/O B.G.MANJAPPA, SINCE DIED BY HIS LR'S - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 5(a) SMT REVATHI, W/O LATE SRI B G NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 5(b) KESHAVA PRASAD B N, S/O LATE SRI B G NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5(c) SMT SOWMYASHRI B N, W/O DR ARAVIND J D, D/O LATE SRI B G NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 5(d) SMT B N LAVANYA, W/O SOMASHEKAR H, D/O LATE SRI B G NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.5(a) to (d) ARE RESIDING AT 161, 4TH MAIN, BCC LAYOUT WATER TANK, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DT: 19.11.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P A KULKARNI, ADV.FOR R3 & R4(A) & R5(A TO D), R1 IS SERVED, V/O/DT06.02.2024 R4(A) & R5 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R2(A) V/O/DT 11.03.2025, APPEAL AGAINST R5 IS DELETED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 3.1.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.9/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 17.2.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.85/1999 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BELUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. Suit is filed in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.77/B of Kachihally village, Taluk:Belur. The extent of the property according to the plaintiff is 9 acres 30 guntas. 2. The suit is filed on the premise that this property is granted to the plaintiff's father in the year 1982. Defendants are said to be the owner of the property bearing Sy.Nos.118, 119, 123 of Kachihally Village, Taluk: Belur. 3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, plaintiff filed First Appeal and the First Appellate Court has dismissed that appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court reserved liberty to the legal representatives of the plaintiff to get the suit property - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 demarcated and identified by the Competent Authority and thereafter to approach the Competent Court. 4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff are before this Court in the Second Appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants adverting the attention of this Court to the application dated 26.03.2025 would submit that appellants have filed an application before the concerned Revenue Authority for demarcation of property bearing Sy.No.77/B. 6. It is further stated that the property is surveyed by the Assistant Director of Land Records after issuing notice to the concerned. 7. It is further submitted that after the completion of the survey work, the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the designated Deputy Director of Land Records, Hassan has given an endorsement that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 demarcation/identification and correction of the records pertaining to Sy.Nos.77, 118, 119 and 123 of Kachihally village, Taluk:Belur cannot be proceeded further in view of the pendency of this proceeding before this Court. 8. Respondents have not filed any objection to the application seeking production of additional documents. 9. From the records placed before the Court, it is noticed that the dispute is relating to the identity of the suit schedule property. Considering the fact that suit schedule property is not properly identifiable based on the alleged grant order, the First Appellate Court has reserved liberty to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to move the Competent Authority for identification and demarcation of the property records. 10. The appellants though have filed an appeal before this Court have also approached the Competent Authority for demarcation and identification of property records. However, as noticed, the Deputy Director of Land - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 Records has not proceeded further by issuing endorsement dated 04.01.2023 on the premise that the appeal is pending, before this Court. 11. This Court is of the view that the pendency of the appeal should not come in the way of Competent Authority to proceed further based on the survey of the suit property and the adjoining properties. 12. Hence, direction is issued to the jurisdictional Revenue Officer to proceed further in respect of the claim made by the appellants for identification/demarcation of the suit property in accordance with law. 13. This Court is of the view that no substantial question of law would arise to interfere in the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 14. Dismissal/disposal of this appeal should not be construed as having expressed an opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20058 RSA No. 658 of 2012 15. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be decided by the jurisdictional Revenue Authorities. If any person is aggrieved by the order of the jurisdictional Revenue Authority then, he is entitled to challenge the same as advised in law. 16. With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36