- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1751 OF 2013 (DEC) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2021 IN RSA No. 1751/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. ABDUL REHMAN, DIED BY LR’S, 1(A). S.K. NOORULLA, SON OF LATE ABDUL REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 1(B). S.K. SAHEB JAN, SON OF LATE ABDUL REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 1(C). S.K. NASEER AHMED, SON OF LATE ABDUL REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 1(D). S.K. KHALEEL AHMED, SON OF LATE ABDUL REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING, SANTHEBENNUR TOWN, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DT:15.03.2019 2. SRI K. NAZEER AHAMED, S/O LATE SABJAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHEBENNUR TOWN, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA .P .M AND SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR A2, SRI. K. GURUDATTA FOR A1(A-E) AND A2, SRI. R. KOTWAL FOR A1(A-E), ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. ANNAPURNAMMA, MOTHER OF JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHEBENNUR TOWN, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. SINCE RESPONDENT NO.1 DIED REPRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD AMEDNED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 13.11.2024 2. SMT. KALPANA WIFE OF LATE JAYAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHEBENNUR TOWN, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA PUTTANA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DATED 6.11.2024, R2 IS ONLY LR OF DECEASED R1) THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:31.8.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.53/2011 (OLD NO.237/2009) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.3.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.97/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., CHANNAGIRI. IN RSA NO. 1532/2021: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NOORULLA. S. K., S/O. LATE K. ABDUL RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SRI. S. K. SAJEEDH JHAN, S/O. LATE K. ABDUL RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SRI. S. K. NAZEER AHAMED, S/O. LATE K. ABDUL RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. SRI. S. K. KHALEEL AHAMED, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 S/O. LATE K. ABDUL RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5. SMT. SHAYEENA, W/O. SYED RABBANI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 6. SRI. K. NAZEER AHAMED, S/O. LATE SABJAAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SANTHEBENNUR POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUDHATTA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P. VAGEESH S/O. P. VEERAPPA, KOTE ROAD, SANTHEBENNUR POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST-577 552 SINCE DEAD BY LRS REPRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD AMEDNED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 21.11.2024 P. V. SNEHA PATTANA SHETTY, D/O. LATE P. VAGEESH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 2. P. V. SMEETHA PATTANA SHETTY, D/O. LATE P. VAGEESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SRI. P. V. SAGAR S/O. LATE P. VAGEESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SMT. P. RENUKA DEVI, W/O. P. VAGEESH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4. SMT. P. RENUKA DEVI, W/O. LATE P. VAGEESH, ALL RESIDENT OF KOTE ROAD, SANTHEBENNUR POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 552. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAGMALA B K., AND SRI. MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R4, (R1 IS REP. BY HER GPA R2)) THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.76/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.294/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT These Regular Second appeals are filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree passed in RA No.53/2011 (old No.237/2009) dated 31.08.2013, and in RA No.76/2019 dated 23.10.2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The plaintiffs and defendants in OS No.97/1993 are the appellants and the respondents in RSA No.1751/2013, and the plaintiffs in RSA No.1532/2021 are same as that of RSA No.1751/2013, but against different defendants for declaration of title regarding the suit property bearing No.237, and sought for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: It is contended that the land bearing Sy.No.237 of Santhebennur village, totally measuring 9 acre 15 guntas originally belonged to one Sabjaan Sab. Out of the said land, to an extent of 5 acres 37 guntas has been acquired for the construction of the School building and remaining 3 acre 18 guntas including Kharab remained with Sabjaan Sab. He had disposed off certain portions of the aforesaid 3 acre 18 guntas of land for the construction of veterinary hospital retaining 19 ¼ guntas of the said land. After the death of Sabjaan Sab, plaintiffs became the absolute owners. The defendants trespassed and put up a sheet. Defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 there is dispute regarding the boundary of the suit schedule property and accordingly prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The purchasers, who have purchased the property from Sabjaan Sab also filed several suits in O.S.Nos.57, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 78 to 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 94, 95, 128, 129 of 1993, and 232 of 2001. The said suits were dismissed on 04.11.2004. Against the said judgments, the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suits preferred the appeals in R.A.Nos.30, 31, 29, 28, 52, 35, 36, 37, 38 to 45, 14, 46 to 49 and 59 of 2011. The said appeals came to be dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment dated 16.04.2012. The plaintiffs in the instant case, taken a similar contention in their plaint. The coordinate bench of this Court has confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court, as well as the first appellate court, in the aforesaid cases. This appeal is also liable to be dismissed, in view of the judgment passed by this court, in RSA.No.1104/2012, and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 the connected matters, which were disposed of on 15.07.2015. 6. The plaintiff filed an application for the production of additional evidence in support of an application, produced a document i.e., registered sale deed. 7. Though the appeal was filed in 2013, but the plaintiff has filed an application for the production of additional evidence on 12.11.2024. Though, the appellants have contended that the suit came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellants have not produced the title deed, and produced the registered sale deed dated 30.4.1915. From the perusal of the pleadings, the plaintiff have not pleaded regarding the alleged document i.e., registered sale deed dated 30.04.1915. Further, the plaintiffs have not stated, why the said document was not produced before the trial court. 8. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of N.Kamalam (Dead) & Another Vs - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 Ayyasamy & Another reported in (2001) 7 SCC 503, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provision of Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC are not designed to help the parties to recoup the points, and make up for omissions earlier made. Jurisdiction of the appellate court is restricted to permitting such an additional evidence, as would enable it to pronounce the judgment. Further, also held that the court must always be cautious about allowing applications, seeking to adduce additional evidence, particularly in the form of oral evidence after a long interval between the decree, and the application, and held that the application was made 10 years after the decree was passed, and held that the High Court was justified in dismissing the application filed for the production of additional evidence. On perusal of application filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to prove that despite due diligence, the plaintiffs could not produce the said document before the trial court. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the requirements under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21646 RSA No. 1751 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1532 of 2021 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error, or substantial question of law that arises for consideration, in these appeals. Considering the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in RSA No.1104/2012 disposed of on 15.7.2015, learned counsel for the defendants also submit that the judgment and decree passed in RSA No.1104/2012 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.27823/2018 disposed of on 07.12.2018. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs. In view of dismissal of the main appeals, pending applications if any, are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE AKV_List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20