- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDABASAVAIAH, 2. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDABASAVAIAH, 3. BASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDABASAVAIAH R/AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NANJANGUD TALUK AND TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301. 4. MANIYAPPA , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDABASAVAIAH, APPELLANTS NO.1, 2 ND 4 ARE R/AT HOOVINAKERE VILLAGE, SARGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 AND: 1. CHENNAIAH,, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKABASAVAIAH 2. C. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKABASAVAIAH, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT HOOVINAKOLA VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114. 3. SMT. PUTTAMADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, W/O LATE MUDDAIAH, R/AT LANKE VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114. SINCE DEAD BY LR'S. 3(A). SMT. SANNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O KARIYAIAH, D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, R/AT LANKE VILLAGE, CHANDRAVADI POST SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 3(B). RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, R/AT LANKE VILLAGE, CHANDRAVADI POST SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. 3(C). CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, R/AT LANKE VILLAGE, CHANDRAVADI POST SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. 3(D). CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, R/AT LANKE VILLAGE, CHANDRAVADI POST SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. 4. SMT. MANIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O LATE SANNAIAH , R/AT KALLIHUNDI VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 5. SMT. SANNATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/O CHENNAIAH, R/AT HOOVINAKOLA VILLAGE, SARGUR HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R5; SRI. D.C. PARAMESHWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3( A-D); R4 - SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.95/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.288/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC H.D.KOTE. 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 02.12.2016, passed in R.A.No.95/2014 by the learned Principal Senior - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 Civil Judge, JMFC, Hunsur and the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014, passed in O.S.No.288/2009 by the learned Civil Judge, H.D.Kote. 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. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that originally one Maniya purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1926 from one Javara S/o Chennabasava. After the death of Maniya, his only son by name Siddabasavaiah was in possession of the suit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 schedule property till his death. During his life time, the katha of the suit schedule property was standing in the name of Siddabasavaiah. After his demise, the plaintiffs, being the son of Siddbasavaiah, have succeeded to the suit schedule property and continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. 3.1. One Basamma, who is the sister of the plaintiff's father, was given in marriage to one Chikkachennaiah. She was residing at her matrimonial home at Lanke Village. After her marriage, the said Basamma left plaintiffs’ family. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of the said Basamma. 3.2. After the demise of the plaintiff's father, the mother of the defendants migrated from Lanke village to Hoovinakola Village and settled at Hoovinakola Village and she was doing coolie work for her livelihood. The defendant's mother passed away in 1999-2000. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 colluded with each other, entered their names in the record of rights of the suit schedule property under - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 M.R.No.2/2000-01 by colluding with revenue officials. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry U/s.128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act., but the Tahsildar did not comply with the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner. Defendants No.1 and 2 had filed the suit in O.S.No.103/2001 against the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction regarding the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hunsur, and the same is pending. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2, on the strength of revenue records and on the strength of the decree in O.S.No.103/2001, are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, pray to decree the suit. 3.3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement, and defendant Nos.3 to 5 the sisters of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 plaintiffs, subsequently impleaded by the plaintiffs, did not appear before the trial Court, and they were placed exparte. 3.4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 file a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the suit, and also the death of Siddabasavaiah and Basamma, who died about 50 years back. It is contended that, during the lifetime of the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2, their grandfather partitioned the family property bearing Sy.No.6, measuring 7 acres 9 guntas, orally. In the said partition, the suit schedule property i.e., 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.6, fell to the share of the mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2. During her lifetime, she was in possession and enjoyment of the said suit schedule property. But, she did not get entered her name in the revenue records, since she was an illiterate. Subsequently, the defendants entered their names in the record of rights. The plaintiffs have challenged the mutation which is in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal is pending. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 It is contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and it is also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not sought a relief of possession. It is also contended that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.103/2001 against the present plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed, holding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 3.5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issue: 1.Whether the plaintiffs prove that after the death of Siddabasavaiah, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owners thereof? 2.Whether the Plaintiffs prove that Defendants are illegally trying to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property? 3.Whether the Defendants prove that in partition effect during the lifetime of Muniya, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 suit schedule property was allotted the share of Basamma? 4.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed in the suit? 6.What order or decree? Additional Issue:- 1.Whether the plaintiff proves the sources of title over the properties for determining the relief? 3.6. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW1, plaintiff No.4 was examined as PW2, examined one witness as PW3, and marked 24 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, defendant No.2 was examined as DW2, and marked 40 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D40. 3.7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1,2,5 and additional issue No.1 in the negative, issue Nos.3 and 4 in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 the affirmative, and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with cost vide judgment dated 01.12.2014. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.288/2009, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.95/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, and JMFC, Hunsur. 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the appellants establish that the lower Court failed to consider the Sale Deed of grandfather of the plaintiffs and failed to appreciate the evidence and come to the wrong conclusion and it resulted in failure of justice? 2. What Order or Decree? 3.9. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative, point No.2 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed with cost, and the judgment and a decree passed in O.S.No.288/2009 was confirmed. The plaintiffs, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and the defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and produced the documents. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the said documents. He also submits that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for relief of declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable, and to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Akkamma and Others Vs. Vemavathi and others in Civil Appeal No.5884/2009 disposed of on 25.11.2021. He submits that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Akkamma (referred Supra). He - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 also submits that the First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court does not comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants, Miss.Thanima Bekal submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable. Before filing of the instant suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.103/2001. The said suit was decreed. The trial Court has recorded a finding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit schedule property. She submits that the mere suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is not maintainable unless the plaintiffs claim a relief of possession. To buttress her arguments, she has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasantha (D) through Lrs vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (D) through - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 legal representatives reported in (2024) SCR 326. She submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Courts are in confirmity with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasantha (referred supra). Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court recasted the substantial question of law on 22.04.2025, which reads as under: (1) Whether both the Courts below were justified in recording its finding that the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction is not maintainable in the absence of relief of possession, wherein the Civil Court in O.S.No.103/2001 recorded a finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit properties?" 8. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW1. He reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief. To prove their claim, the plaintiffs have produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the Special Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of one H.J.Vishwanath, authorising him - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 to depose on behalf of the plaintiffs. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 23.06.1926, which discloses that Muniya purchased the suit property from one Javara S/o Chennabasava. Ex.P3 to Ex.P13 are the RTC extracts which stand in the name of one Javara S/o Chennabasava, i.e. the vendor of Maniya. Ex.P14 is the record of rights. Ex.P15 is the index of land. Ex.P16 to Ex.P18 are the land tax paid receipts. Ex.P19 is the mutation register extract, Ex.P20 is the certified copy of the order of the Assistant commissioner dated 18.04.2002. Ex.P21 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 25.02.2003. Ex.P22 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant commissioner dated 17.09.2009. Ex.P23 is the certified copy of the order passed in R.A.No.129/2000-01, Ex.P24 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.103/2001. 9. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW1 that defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 O.S.No.103/2001 for the relief of permanent injunction, and the said suit was decreed, the said suggestion was admitted by PW1. 10. Further, the plaintiffs also examined two witnesses, PW2 and PW3, who deposed in the same terms as PW1, who had reiterated in the examination-in-chief of PW1. PW2, during the cross-examination, admitted that there was a partition among themselves and they are living separately, enjoying their share properties respectively. PW3, in the cross-examination admitted that he does not know the particulars of the suit schedule property and he has no knowledge of the revenue proceedings. 11. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, he deposed that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property, and he denied that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. He has deposed that the revenue records stand in the name - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs, though they had challenged the revenue entries before the revenue authorities, were unsuccessful before the revenue authorities. He has deposed that the plaintiffs tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.103/2001. The suit was decreed, and the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.103/2001, preferred an appeal. He has deposed that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.NO.103/2001 has attained finality. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, to prove their defense, the defendants produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the Genealogical tree Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 are the election vote list Ex.D4 is the order copy Ex.D5 is the mutation register extract Ex.D6 to Ex.D11 are the handwritten RTC's - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 Ex.D12 to Ex.D24 are the RTC's Ex.D25 to Ex.D29 are the tax paid receipts Ex.D30 is the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in WP.No.19928/1983 filed by one Maraswamaiah against the Deputy Commissioner and others challenging the notification dated 03.09.1981, 07.12.1982 and dated 30.12.1982. This Court vide order dated 26.10.1988 allowed the writ petition and allowed the writ petition and quashed the final notification insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 30.11.1988 with the statement of objections and the Assistant Commissioner to hold the necessary enquiry. Ex.D31 is the notice issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Ex.D32 is the order passed by the Tahasildar Ex.D33 is the M.R.copy Ex.D34 to Ex.D36 are the RTC extracts. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 Ex.D37 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.103/2001, wherein, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit against the plaintiffs herein for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 07.04.2007. Ex.D38 is the certified copy of the decree Ex.D39 and Ex.D40 are the RTC extracts 12. Defendant No.2 was also examined as DW2. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination in chief. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to disbelieve the evidence. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, defendant Nos.1 and 2, before filing this suit, filed a suit in O.S.No.103/2001, claiming the ownership over the suit schedule property, and sought a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs herein filed a written statement, and they have taken the defence in the said suit. 13. The contents of the written statement filed in O.S.No.103/2001 are the same contentions raised by the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 plaintiffs in the present suit. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties in O.S.No.103/2001, held that defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein are in possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed and restrained the present plaintiffs from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein without recourse to the law. The said judgment was passed on 07.04.2007. The plaintiff has filed present suit on 17.12.2009 i.e., after the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.103/2001. Further, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.103/2001, preferred an appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the Regular appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.103/2001 attained finality. Despite having suffered a decree in O.S.No.103/2001, the plaintiffs did not choose - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 to seek the relief of possession. The plaintiffs have sought relief in the form of a declaration of title and an injunction. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction, without seeking the relief of possession. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as per the provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Bucchireddy (Dead) By Lrs and others reported in AIR (2008) 4 SCC 594, held in para 21 reads as under: “21. The plaintiffs and their witnesses gave evidence to the effect that Damodar Rao represented that his sister Rukminibai was the owner of the plot and negotiated for sale of the several portions thereof in favour of plaintiffs and PW3, and that Damodar Rao had attested the sale deeds in their favour and identified his sister as the vendor executant before the Sub-Registrar, at the time of registration of the sale deeds. It is no doubt true that if that was the position, it is possible for them to contend that having regard to section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, when the ostensible owner Rukminibai sold the property with the implied - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 consent of Damodar Rao, the defendant as a transferee from Damodar Rao could not contend that the sales were not valid. They also alleged that defendant was a close relative of Damodar Rao and the sale in favour of defendant was only nominal, intended to defeat their title. But Damodar Rao in his evidence denied having made the oral gift or having attested the sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs. He also denied having identified his sister at the time of registration of the sale deeds. Whether Rukminibai's evidence and other plaintiffs' witnesses should be believed or whether evidence of Damodar Rao should be believed on the question of title, can be examined only when there are necessary pleadings and an issue regarding title. Further, where title of plaintiffs is disputed and claim for possession is purely based on title, and the plaintiffs have to rely on various principles of law relating to ostensible ownership and section 41 of TP Act, validity of a oral gift by way of 'pasupu kumkum' under Hindu Law, estoppel and acquiescence, to put forth a case of title, such complicated questions could properly be examined only in a title suit, that is a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs, and not in a suit for an injunction simplicitor”. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a cloud is raised over the plaintiff’s title and he does not have a possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but is out of possession, he has to sue for the relief of possession and for the consequential injunction. Where there is a remedy for an interference with the plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for injunction simpliciter. 16. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff is out of possession, and the plaintiff has not sought the relief of possession. Both the Courts were justified in recording the finding that a mere suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction without seeking for possession is not maintainable. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are in compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 case of Anathulla Sudhakar (referred supra) and the law laid down in the case of Vasantha (referred supra). 17. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akkamma (referred supra). I have perused the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akkamma (referred supra), wherein the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the plaintiff is out of possession, there is no bar for granting the relief of declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. However, the said view is overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vasantha (referred supra). 18. Admittedly, in the instant case, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.103/2001 and the said suit was decreed holding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein are in possession over the suit schedule property and the said suit was disposed of in the year 2007 and the present suit is filed in the year 2009. The plaintiff, - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16983 RSA No. 227 of 2017 knowing fully well that they are out of possession, instead of seeking the possession, sought for a permanent injunction. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No/1/2017 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK,SKS