- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.703 OF 2025 (POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. H.J. HEMALATHA, W/O. LATE A.V.JAYAVIBHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.1099, F-16, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-560 097. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A.V. SHARADADEVI, D/O. LATE ANNAGERE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.695/1B, BEHIND PADMA THEATRE, MS SIDDAPPA LAYA, OLD AGRAHARA, MYSURU-583 128. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2025. PASSED IN R.A.NO.76/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.430/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant is in permissive possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, sought for the relief of possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in order to prove her case examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 33. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 41. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 that she cannot say on what basis she has been in possession, but only says that her husband brought her and they are residing in the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 said property. Though she claims that she is also a co-owner, nothing is placed on record to contend that the property belongs to the family. On the other hand, the plaintiff produced the sale deed Ex.P.1 and also produced the document of agreement dated 10.12.2008, wherein the defendant and her husband have agreed to handover the vacant possession of the schedule property in the same condition and also agreed to pay the damages. Having considered the said agreement, which is marked as Ex.P.27, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there was an agreement that the defendant is in permissive possession and hence granted the relief as sought. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.76/2021. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit relying upon oral and documentary evidence placed on record and whether the judgment of the Trial Court requires interference. The First Appellate Court re-appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, affirmed the judgment of the Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 Court and even taken note of that at an undisputed point of time, document Ex.P.16 came into existence and none of the parties to the said document have challenged the validity of the said document nor they have denied the execution of the said document. The defendant has taken the contention that her husband and brothers have obtained some of the signatures of the defendant on the stamp paper forcibly. The First Appellate Court also extracted the evidence of D.W.1 that earlier they were in leased property bearing No.695/1B and the same was quit and delivered and also agreed the recitals of the document of Ex.P.17 and the defendant also signed the said document. D.W.1 in the cross-examination has categorically admitted that the property was standing in the name of the plaintiff and they were paying the rent from 2005 onwards. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the filing of the case in terms of Ex.D.1 i.e., order sheet in O.S.No.17/2011, which is filed by the defendant against her husband and others for the relief of perpetual injunction and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. The First Appellate Court also taken note of Ex.D.2, wherein declaration is sought to declare the defendant as the legal heir. The First Appellate Court taken note of Ex.P.29 notice - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 issued to the Superintendent of Post by the defendant Hemalatha, wherein in the said document there is a recital admitting the ownership of the plaintiff and the same is extracted in paragraph No.36. In paragraph No.37, extracted the evidence of D.W.1, wherein she has categorically deposed that she is not aware of the fact that on what basis she is in possession of the suit property. Having culled out the admission on the part of D.W.1, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the Courts below erred in believing the document of Ex.P.27, which is an alleged agreement dated 10.12.2008 and the same is on a plain paper and the said document is neither registered nor stamped. The learned counsel contend that the witnesses to the said agreement are the brothers of the plaintiff and both the Courts have committed an error in relying upon the document of Ex.P.27 and the same is a disputed document. Both the Courts committed an error in believing that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property based on the sale deed dated 29.08.2005 and the said property was purchased out of the funds contributed by the husband of the defendant from the income generated from the sale of the property and the same has not been considered by the Court. The learned counsel prayed this Court to frame the substantial question of law that both the Courts are not justified in believing Ex.P.27, which is an alleged agreement dated 10.12.2008. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, the Trial Court taken note of the pleadings of the plaintiff. The plaintiff mainly relies upon the documents of Exs.P.27 and 29 to show that the defendant is residing in the suit schedule property under permissive possession, which was admitted by D.W.1 in the cross-examination. In order to disprove the contention of the defendant, nothing is elicited from the mouth of the witnesses and produced the relevant documents to show that the defendant became the owner of the suit property as co-owner and the same is observed in paragraph No.22 of the Trial Court judgment. The plaintiff - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 also produced the sale deed Ex.P.1 to show that it is the self- acquired property of the plaintiff. Hence, answered issue No.2 in the affirmative. 8. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly relied upon the document Ex.P.27, wherein there was an undertaking given by the defendant as well as her husband to quit and vacate the premises. The First Appellate Court also re-assessed the evidence available on record and taken note of that at undisputed point of time the document came into existence and immediate possession was given to the defendant since they were earlier residing in a leased premises and the same was vacated. In paragraph Nos.31 and 36 extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 and so also in paragraph No.37. When such material is available before the Court, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering the document of Ex.P.27. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the same is disputed, but signature is not disputed and only contention is taken that the signature is taken on blank paper. But to corroborate the same, nothing is placed on record and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23359 RSA No. 703 of 2025 the same has been considered by both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The very contention that the defendant is also co-owner is not supported by placing on record any cogent material. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts committed an error in believing the documents of Exs.P.27 and 29 cannot be accepted. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69