- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2047 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. C.SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. CHIKKAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT T.BEGUR POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN - 562 123. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. RAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT CHIKKASOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN-562 120. 2. CHITTAIAH S/O EERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED AND HIS WIFE RAMAKKA ALSO DIED REPRESENTED BY THEIR LR's Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 SMT. GANGAMMA W/O VEERANAGAIAH SHE ALSO EXPIRED AND HER LR's 2(a) SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2(b) SMT. KAMALA D/O LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 2(c) SMT. CHANDRA D/O LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2(d) SMT. NAGARATHNA D/O LATE GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2(e) SMT. CHIKKAMMA D/O LATE CHITTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL THE ABOVE LR's R/AT APPAGONDANAHALLI, GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, MANNE POST, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 3. SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O. NARASEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 4. HARSHITHA D/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, 5. DARSHITHA S/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, 6. BASAVARAJU S/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, (RESPONDENTS FROM SL.NO.3 TO 6 ARE R/AT CHIKKASOLUR, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, PIN-562 120. 7. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O. YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 8. SMT. SARVAMANGALA D/O. YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 9. SMT. SHASHIKALA D/O. YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 10. SMT. VANAJAKSHI D/O. YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 11. SMT. BHARATHI D/O. YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 12. KUM. SAVITHA D/O YALAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 12 R/AT BASAVENAHALLI, MARIKUPPA POST, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN-562 120. 13. DODDA HANUMAIAH S/O. PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 14. SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA D/O. PUTTAIAH, (W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA), SINCE DEAD BY LR's 14(a) SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 14(b) SMT. NARASAMMA D/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 14(c) SRI. NAGARAJU S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 14(d) SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 14(e) LATE PRAKASH S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRs 14(e)(i) PRIYA W/O LATE. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 14(e)(ii) SONU S/O LATE. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 14(e)(iii) SUPRIYA D/O LATE. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS MINORS REP. BY MOTHER R14(e)(i) RESPONDENT NO.13, 14(a) to 14(e) AND 14(e)(i) to 14(e)(iii) ARE R/AT NO.321, III CROSS, THIMMAKKA LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560032. 15. RAJANNA S/O. LATE MUDDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 16. NAGALINGAIAH S/O.MUDDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.15 AND 16 R/AT CHIKKASOLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN-562 120. 17. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT GOLLAHATTI, CHIKKASOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, PIN-562 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP.J.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N. SUBBASHASTRY, ADV. FOR R3, R2, R5, R6 & R17; R1, R4, R13, R16, R14(A), R14(B), R14(C), R14(D), R14(E) ARE SERVED V/O DATED 12.4.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R15 IS H/S; R14(E) (II & III) ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER R4(E)(I); SRI. PRADEEP.J.S., ADV. FOR R2(A TO E); V/O DATED 09.12.2023 NOTICE TO R7 TO R12 IS D/W) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD: 18.07.2017 PASSED IN RA.NO.54/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 26.08.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.3/2014 (OLD NO.163/2000) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.54/2014 dated 18.07.2017 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, wherein, the First Appellate Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff in part, and it is ordered and declared that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the suit schedule properties excluding the properties sold to defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, by metes and bounds and the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2014 passed in O.S.No.3/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit, against the defendants for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are Inam lands, and the said lands were required to be re-granted in favour of the holders of the village office. One Muthaiah was the original Barawardar office of the Talwar. The said Muthaiah died leaving behind his three sons, namely Huchappa, Muddarangaiah and Nanjappa, and the plaintiff and defendant No.6 i.e., Kempamma are the two daughters of Muthaiah. After the demise of Muthaiah, his children succeeded to the suit properties. The sons of Muthaiah have given up their rights in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.6. Accordingly, they become the right holders of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.6 alienated the suit properties in favour of one Ramaiah, defendant No.5, C.N.Kambaiah and Chittaiah. Defendant No.6 had filed an application to re-grant of the land before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority re-granted the land in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.6 as per the order dated 08.07.1981. The Competent Authorities initiated the eviction proceedings against the persons who were in possession of the land. The Tahsildar initiated proceedings, in which it was ordered to take over the lands to the Government as per mahazar, and afterwards, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 possession of the said lands was handed over to that plaintiff and defendant No.6. In the meanwhile, defendant Nos.2 to 5, aggrieved by the order of re-grant in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.6, filed the writ petitions, and the said writ petitions were disposed of, and the order of eviction was quashed, and directed the petitioner therein to make necessary applications before the Tahsildar for regularization of the same, if it is provided, and permissible under law. The order passed in writ petitions was challenged in W.A.F.R.No.931/95. The said appeal was dismissed as time-barred. It is contended that, the sale deed executed by defendant No.6 in favour of other defendants is illegal and void under the law. Hence, it is contended that the plaintiff has half a share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3(a) to (d), 4 and 5 have filed their separate written statements. Defendant No.1 admits that the suit schedule properties belonged to the Government, and one Muthaiah was the Talwar, and he had three sons, and two daughters. After the demise of Muthaiah, his sons gifted Sy.No.7 measuring 9 acres 1 gunta, and 1 acre 16 guntas of the land in Sy.No.69/1 as per the gift deed dated 09.12.1955 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 to defendant No.6. Defendant No.6 was looking after the Talwar work, and thereafterwards she sold 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.69/1 in favour of Ramaiah on 10.06.1969, and Ramaiah was in possession of the said suit schedule property. After the demise of Ramaiah, defendant No.1, who is his wife, is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right or share in Sy.No.69/1. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1 regarding Sy.No.69/1. 6. Defendant Nos.2, 3(a) to (d), 4 and 5 filed a written statement admitting that the suit schedule properties belonged to the Government and were Inam lands. Muthaiah was the Barawardar, and he had three sons and two daughters. It is contended that the suit properties were inherited only by the sons of Muthaiah, and his sons have gifted the suit properties in favour of defendant No.6. The sons of Muthaiah have not given up their right over the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. As per the gift deed, defendant No.6 became the lawful owner of the suit schedule properties, and defendant No.6 sold the properties in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5 and these defendants have questioned the order of Tahsildar about - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 the eviction before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the High Court has quashed the said orders passed by the Tahsildar, and the writ appeal was dismissed. It is further contended that, the plaintiff has no right or title over the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against them. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff to substantiate the case, the legal representative of the plaintiff was examined as PW.1, one witness as PW.2, and marked 19 documents as per Exs.P1 to P19. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined herself as DW.1, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.2, defendant No.3(d) was examined as DW.3, defendant No.9 was examined as DW.4, and marked 14 documents as per Exs.D1 to 14. 8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 26.08.2014. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.3/2014, preferred an appeal in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 R.A.No.54/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. 9. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in part, and it is ordered and declared that the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the suit schedule properties excluding the properties sold to defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, by metes and bounds, vide judgment dated 18.07.2017. The plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned judgments, dismissing the suit excluding the properties sold to defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, filed this Regular Second appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the sons of Muthaiah have given up their rights in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.6. The plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the suit schedule properties including the properties sold in favour of defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5. He submits that both the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments regarding the properties sold in favour of defendant - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 Nos.2, 4 and 5 and that the suit has been filed well within time. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 13. It is not in dispute that the land was re-granted in the name of the late Venkatamma and the late Kempamma. In pursuance of the grant made in favour of the late Venkatamma and late Kempamma, their names were entered in the revenue records. The Tahsildar has passed an order and drawn the mahazar as per Exs.P17 and P18 respectively. Exs.P17 and P18 were challenged in W.P.Nos.23356 and 23357/1982, and the said writ petitions were filed by defendant Nos.2 and 5. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 11.07.1985 and in the said writ petitions, it was directed to pay 15 times the land assessment within three months and seek regularization of the same. Even another purchaser, C.N.Kambaiah had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.19545/1982. The said writ petition was allowed, and the direction was issued to Tahsildar to regularize the sale in accordance with law regarding 03 acres in Sy.No.7. The order - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 passed in the said writ petition was challenged by the present plaintiff by filing a writ appeal. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.04.1995. The plaintiff did not challenge the Registered Sale Deeds executed in favour of Kambaiah, Chittaiah, Ramaiah and Thirumalaiah till 2000. The plaintiff had knowledge regarding the execution of Registered Sale Deeds in favour of Kambaiah, Chittaiah, Ramaiah and Thirumalaiah but has not challenged the same. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for a declaration is to be filed within three years from the date of the right to sue first accrues. The plaintiff had knowledge of the execution of Registered Sale Deeds in 1982, and the plaintiff has not chosen to file a suit within three years from the date of the right to sue first accrues. Even the plaintiff did not make an attempt to file the suit after disposal of the writ appeal within three years. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief regarding of Sy.Nos.7 and 69 is barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daliben Valjibhai and others vs. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and another in SLP (CIVIL) NO.23625/2024 disposed of on 11.12.2024 at Paragraph No.10, has held as under: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 "10. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants made an application for correcting the revenue records only in the year 2017 and on the said application the Deputy Collector issued notice to the plaintiffs in March 2017 and that was the time when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed. It is under these circumstances that the suit was instituted in the year 2017. While the High Court came to the correct conclusion that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit can be instituted within 3 years of the knowledge, it proceeded to return a finding that in cases where the document is registered, the knowledge must be presumed from the date of registration. 14. On the account that the plaintiff did not challenge the Registered Sale Deeds within three years from the date of her knowledge, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings against the plaintiff, insofar as schedule 'A' and 'B' of the suit schedule properties. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and any substantial question of law does not arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed; - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13814 RSA No. 2047 of 2017 (ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in R.A.No.54/2014 dated 18.07.2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and in O.S.No.3/2014 dated 26.08.2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, regarding the properties sold in favour of defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the cost. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21