- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. JOSEPH S/O LATE INNESHAPPA L DIED ON 04-01-2013 NO ISSUES R/O MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI 560068 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 2. 2(a) SMT. CHOWRAMMAM W/O LATE RAYAPPA, DIED ON 09-04-2013 HER LEGAL HEIRS SHANTHARAJ S/O LATE CHOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI 560068 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 2(b) R. ANTHONY RAJU S/O LATE CHOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI 560068 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 2(c) AROGYASWAMY S/O LATE CHOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI 560068 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAIK N R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560001 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE COMPOUND BANGALORE 560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE 560009 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KEMPEGWODA ROAD BANGALORE 560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1-R4.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED20.11.2012 PASSED IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 R.A.NO.166/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.5.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.677/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2012 passed in R.A.No.166/2012 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012 passed in O.S.No.677/2007 by the learned first Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration of title based on the adverse possession and a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the unauthorised cultivators of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 20 guntas from 1950 and their forefathers have continuously had possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The name of the plaintiffs appear in the revenue records for having cultivated the suit property. Plaintiffs are cultivating the suit schedule property. They have perfected the title through adverse possession as they have been in possession for more than 57 years, without any obstruction or interference. It is contended that the plaintiffs are the permanent residents of Mylasandra village and their forefathers lived in the same village. It is contended that defendant No.4 tried to evict the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice under Section 80 of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 CPC. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 4. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that, one Smt.P.Lakshmi filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.8192/2007 for renewal of a license to quarry the stone for 17 acres of land in the suit survey number and denied that the plaintiffs' forefathers and plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any obstruction or interference and denied that the plaintiffs had acquired the title through an adverse possession. It is contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants are trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Declaration and Permanent Injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of Mandatory injunction as prayed for? 5. What Decree or Order? 6. To establish the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked 20 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On the other hand the official of the defendants was examined as DW1 and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and assessing verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs vide judgment dated 23.02.2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.677/2007, filed an appeal in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 R.A.No.166/2012 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court - III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 7. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides, framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiffs/appellants have perfected their title to the suit schedule property by the law of adverse possession? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference by this Court? 3. To what order? 8. The first appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was confirmed vide judgment dated 20.11.2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned High Court Government Pleader. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaitniffs' forefathers were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties unauthorisedly for more than 57 years and they have perfected their title through an adverse possession and the said aspect was not properly considered by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the plaintiffs' forefathers were never in possession of the suit schedule property. He also submits that the suit land is a Kharab Land. Hence, the question of cultivating the suit schedule property does not arise. He also submits that although the plaintiffs produced the record of rights for 1984-1985, the names of the plaintiffs do not appear in the revenue records. Hence, he submits that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were/are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and perfected their title by adverse possession. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 Further, he submits that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the plaintiffs. He submits that both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are just and proper and do not require any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. This Court admitted the appeal on 09.04.2019 to consider the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether suit for the relief of title claiming that the same was acquired through adverse possession against the Government is proper and sustainable? 13. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 and reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and in order to prove the possession of the suit schedule property, they produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the Tippani copy - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 Ex.P2 is the Settlement Akar band Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 are the photo graphs Ex.P10 is the CD Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 are the Pahanies Ex.P14 is the office copy of the legal notice issued under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants. Ex.P15 to Ex.P17 are the acknowledgements. Ex.P18 is the notice issued by the Tahasildar Ex.P19 is the certified copy of the sketch of the suit schedule property. Ex.P20 is the certified copy of the Pahani. 14. The plaintiffs, except for producing the record of rights, have not produced any other documents to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 schedule property. From the perusal of the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs, it is disclosed that, plaintiff No.1's father Igneshappa, was in possession of the suit schedule property from 1969-1970 to 1978-1979. 15. Subsequently, plaintiff No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property along with one Kolirayappa from 1978-1979 to 1983-1984. From 1984, the plaintiffs have not produced any records to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Thus the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 30 years, continuously, without interruption. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have perfected their title through adverse possession. 16. The plaintiffs also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3, who deposed that the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 schedule property and have acquired the title to the suit schedule property through adverse possession. 17. On the other hand, the official of the defendants was examined as DW1 and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents. 18. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.300/2007 by the II Additional Civil Judge, JMFC, Senior Division, Bengaluru Rural District wherein, one Susappa filed a similar suit for declaration of title based on the adverse possession and perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.03.2010. Both the Courts below have properly considered the entire evidence on record and rightly held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property for a continuous period of more than 30 years and they have not acquired any title by adverse possession. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19542 RSA No. 1072 of 2013 impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussions, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. 2. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. 3. No order as to costs. 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA.No.1/2013, IA.No.2/2013 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2013 and IA.No.2/2013 are disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2