- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2007 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT SEEGE VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 219. …APPELLANT (BY SMT H R ANITHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE BHANGI AJJANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SEEGE VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 219. 2. VEEREGOWDA, S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SEEGE VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 219. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.2.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.169/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE & PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.4.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO. 375/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC II COURT, HASSAN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is arising from concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff sought declaration of title in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.48 (old No.28/10). The property is located in Devihalli Village, Salagame Hobli at Hassan Taluk. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 07.03.1998 from one Nanjappa. The plaintiff's contention is that Nanjappa, 2nd defendant - Veeregowda and six others purchased Sy.No.28/10 from Mahabaleshwar. It is further stated that Mahabaleshwar acquired right over the property under registered sale deed dated 23.12.1970 executed by Basavarajuu. Plaintiff claims that Basavaraju executed the sale deed for the entire extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.28/10. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 2. Defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the property measuring 28 guntas in Sy.No.28/10 from Basavaraju. Defendant No.1 according to the plaintiff started interfering with the plaintiff's possession and denied the title of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant denied title of the plaintiff, as such, the suit is filed seeking relief of declaration of title and injunction. 3. Both the defendants contested the suit by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.2 contested the suit contending that on 23.12.1970, the property in Sy.No.28/10 was sold by Basavaraju in favour of Mahabaleshwar and Mahabaleshwar in turn sold 1 acre 7 guntas on 20.07.1982 to the plaintiff, 2nd defendant and six others. Defendant No.2 contends that there was no partition among those 8 persons and 2nd defendant is in possession of the property over which the plaintiff is claiming declaration of title. 4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit based on registered sale deed dated 05.12.1998. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 5. After analysing the evidence on record, Trial Court concluded that there is discrepancy in the extent of one of the survey numbers. The Trial Court has noticed that when the property was sold in the year 1970, the extent was only 2 acres however, when the property was sold in the year 1982, additional 28 guntas is included in the sale deed and according to the Trial Court, the discrepancy or inclusion of larger extent of 28 guntas is not properly explained in the plaint or evidence. 6. The Trial Court also noticed that first defendant who claims to have purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 05.12.1998 does not acquire any title over the property on the premise that his vendor Basavaraju had already sold entire 2 acres of land in Sy.No.28/10 under registered sale deed dated 23.12.1970. Thus, the Trial Court has declined to grant the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The Trial Court also held that 1st defendant does not have any right over the property and consequently, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 the suit is dismissed. No finding is given in favour of 2nd defendant insofar as his claim relating to his possession over the suit land. 8. The plaintiff's appeal is also dismissed by the First Appellate Court as the First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. 9. This plaintiff’s second appeal was admitted on 08.06.2007 to answer the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the discrepancy appearing in ex.P4 and ex.P5 negatives the claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?" 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant would contend that after having recorded a finding that 1st defendant has no title over the property, the Trial Court ought to have granted declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff as plaintiff's sale deed dated 07.03.1998 is duly established. It is her further contention that the suit of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 the plaintiff is based on registered sale deed dated 07.03.1998, the vendor has not disputed the plaintiff's claim and there is no dispute relating to the execution of the sale deed, as such declaration ought to have been granted. It is her submission that the First Appellate Court also committed a similar mistake in not appreciating the evidence on record. 11. Learned counsel for 1st respondent would contend that this defence is based on a registered sale deed dated 05.12.1998 and same should have been accepted by the Trial Court and vendor Basavaraju has not disputed this sale deed and the revenue records reflected 28 guntas as against the name of Basavaraju in 1998, and Basavaraju has sold the same in favour of second defendant. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 13. From the records placed before the Court, it is evident that in the year 1970, 2 acres of land is sold by Basavaraju. Referring to the boundaries in the sale deed dated 23.12.1970, the Trial Court has concluded that entire 2 acres in Sy.No.28/10 is sold and no more land was available in the said survey number. This finding is based on the description in the sale deed. This may or may not be correct. Whether the extent of land in Sy.No.28/10 is 2 acres or 2 acres 28 guntas have to be decided with reference to the revenue records prior to 1970. Unfortunately, this exercise has not been carried out. In case, the property bearing Sy.No.28/10 measured 2 acres 28 guntas prior to 1970, then defendant No.1 will also acquire title over 28 guntas as Basavaraju has sold only 2 acres. If the extent is only 2 acres, then 1st defendant will not acquire title over 28 guntas which he claims to have purchased under sale deed dated 05.12.1998. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 14. It is also quite possible that the extent might have been 2 Acres 28 guntas and entire 2 Acres and 28 guntas might have been sold in 1970 by wrongly describing the extent as 2 acres. 15. It is not in dispute that plaintiff's vendor - Nanjappa, 2nd defendant and six others purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 20.07.1982. The said sale transaction is not only in respect of suit property but also in respect of some other survey numbers. 16. The Trial Court has not accepted the alleged partition among 8 purchasers. Defendant No.2 one among the 8 purchasers has also contended that alleged partition has not taken place. 17. This being the position, the Trial Court is justified in declining the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's remedy is not completely lost. Plaintiff still has the opportunity to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 establish his case relating to 1 acre of land or any lesser extent of land which was available at the time of partition. Since the partition is not established, the plaintiff can still file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and partition. 18. Defendant No.1 is also entitled to file an appropriate suit if the land owned by Basavaraju was 2 Acres 28 guntas and Basavaraju has sold only 2 Acres in 1970. 19. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are to be set-aside. 20. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 07.04.2005 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hassan in O.S.No.375/1999 are set-aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 (iii) The judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 on the file of Additional Civil Judge, Fast Track -III, Hassan in R.A.No.169/2006 are set-aside. (iv) The plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with the liberty to file an appropriate comprehensive suit to establish the claim. (v) In case, if any such suit is filed, the Trial Court shall decide the suit keeping in mind the observations made in this judgment. (vi) It is also made clear that in case the suit is filed, all 8 purchasers of the property under the sale deed dated 20.07.1982 or anyone claiming under them shall be impleaded as party. (vii) If any person (who is not a party to the suit) among the 8 purchasers under the sale deed dated 20.07.1982 takes a stand that the partition has already taken place said contention has to be considered independently without reference to any observation in this judgment. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19739 RSA No. 1295 of 2007 (viii) In case defendant No.1 files a suit in respect of 28 guntas which he claims to have purchased, the Court is required to consider whether Basavaraju the original owner possessed more than 2 acres prior to sale in 1970. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61