- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, BY HIS SPA HOLDER, BHIEEMAIAH S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH BROTHER OF HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT BELAGUMBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 562 132 …APPELLANT (BY MISS KARTHIKA NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADVOCATE) AND: LAKSHMINARASAIAH DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. MUTTHURAJU B N S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 3. HEMANTH B N S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4. MUTHURAYAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 5. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 6. B.L. GANGAMMA W/O P D GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT BELAGUMBA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.37/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.683/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Miss.Karthika Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.C.Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6. 2. Present second appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the decree passed in O.S.No.683/2012 declaring that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and defendant being restrained from interfering with the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property): Sy.No.95/4 measuring 3.22 guntas out of 1.23 guntas, situated at Belagumba village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by: East – Remaining land in same survey number West – Land of Chikkarangaiah - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 North – Land of Chikkarangaiah, now his son Ganganna is in possession. South – Land of Doddaiah and Hanumantharayappa 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. In respect of the suit property, a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant. 3.2. In the plaint, it is contended that land bearing Sy.No.95 measuring 11 acres 4 guntas situated in Belagumba village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk was Talavarike inam land. 3.3. Four persons were barabardars namely Matanayaka, Devanayaka, Chikkanna @ Chikkanayaka and Chikkaranganayaka who were doing the Talavarike work in the village and they were in possession and enjoyment of the said land. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 3.4. Matanayaka died leaving behind his wife Puttahanumakka and there were no male issues for them. Said Puttahanumakka has taken her daughter’s son Hanumantharayappa i.e., the defendant as ‘saku maga’ (foster son). Defendant is doing talavarike work on behalf of his grandmother - Puttahanumakka. 3.5. It is stated that plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969 from Puttahanumakka wife of Matanayaka. Since then plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property. 3.6. It is further contended that Doddaiah son of Chikkanna @ Chikkanayaka, Gangamma wife of Chikkarangaiah and defendant have filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Tumkur for regrant of the land in Sy.No.61 and 95 of Belagumba village, which was adjudicated in INA(K)42/1987-88. Tahsildar, Tumkur has regranted the said land in their favour on 21.08.1991 and as per the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 order of the Tahsildar, 1/3rd share out of 11 acres 4 guntas had fallen to the share of Hanumantharayappa i.e., the defendant. 3.7. It is also contended that 1/3rd share would represent 3.22 guntas which had fallen to the share of the defendant and accordingly mutation entries were accepted in the name of defendant to the extent of 3.22 guntas of the land vide MR No.28/1992-93. 3.8. It is further contended that as per the alienation of the service inam land between the year 01.06.1963 and 07.08.1978, by a holder or authorised holder before regrant is not valid as he had vested right in the regrant and had no bar regarding the alienation during the period. 3.9. When subsequent regrant in favour of the defendant has taken place who is the original barabardar of Puttahanumakka, title of the plaintiff became perfect and therefore, defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit property and sought for decreeing the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the fact that land measuring 11 acre 4 guntas of Belagumba village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk was a Talavarike inam land. 5. It is also admitted that there were four barabardars namely Matanayaka, Devanayaka, Chikkanna @ Chikkanayaka and Chikkaranganayaka who were doing the talavarike work in the village and they were in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.95. 6. It is further admitted that Doddaiah, Gangamma and defendant have approached the Tahsildar in getting the 1/3rd share in 11.04 guntas. 7. They further contended that from the beginning, being the grandson of Puttahanumakka, defendant is in possession of the property and therefore, suit of the plaintiff needs to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 8. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 9. Operative portion of the judgment of the Trial Court reads as under: “Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost. It is hereby declared that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property as per registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969. The defendant is hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. Draw decree accordingly.” 10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.37/2023. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and held that the title and possession of the suit property - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 based on the registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969 is established by the plaintiff in a proper manner and the additional documents placed on record by the defendant were rejected and dismissed the appeal of the defendant inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 as under: 16. As already discussed in the foregoing paras, the plaintiff has established that under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969, Puttahanumakka had sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. The defendant admittedly has applied for the regrant order on behalf of Puttahanumakka and same was regranted in his favour with respect to properties in Sy.No.95 and 61 to an extent of 1/3rd share. The aforesaid sale deed dated 10.02.1969 falls in between the dates 01.06.1963 and 07.08.1978. The plaintiff being the alienee of the suit schedule property becomes an alienee with imperfect title. The provisions under The Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 does not authorize the alienee, the plaintiff herein in this case to seek regrant in his own name and his right is only to claim the benefit of doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel as and when regrant is made to his alienor under Section 5(1) of 6 and for this purpose, he may support of pursue any application for regrant in favour of alienor. By referring the same, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff being the alienee has no right to seek for regrant in his own name, for that end, he may support of pursue any application for regrant in favour of his alienor. In this case, admittedly, the regrant order was passed in favour of the defendant to an extent of 322 guntas in Sy.No.95 of Belagumba village, Tumakuru Taluk which is inclusive of suit schedule - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 property and by referring a specific finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Head Note(c) in para No.30, the alienation of service inam land between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 by a holder or an authorized holder before regrant is not invalid as he has a vested right to regrant and as there was no bar regarding alienation during that period, but the alinee will be a person with imperfect title entitled to continue in possession and when the land is regranted to the alienor, the title obtained by the alienor will enure to the benefit of the alinee and since, the regranta order is made in favour of defendant, who has sought for regrant order under Puttahanumakka, the regrant so made under Ex.P2/Ex.D1 enures to the benefit of alienee i.e. plaintiff. Thus, the imperfect title of plaintiff over the suit schedule property by order of regrant has become perfect and thus, by virtue of the sale deed dated 10.02.1969, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of suit schedule property. 17. Under the registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969, there is a clear recital regarding handing over of possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. Since, the document in question is a registered document, the presumption arises in favour of plaintiff regarding his possession over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, by virtue of regrant order under Ex.P2/Ex.D1, the mutations vide MR No.28/199293 which is produced under Ex.D2 were accepted in the name of defendant and the revenue entries pertaining to the suit schedule property were continued in the name of defendant till date, but that by itself does not renders the defendant to be in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Even though, the revenue entries are mutated in the name of defendant, but by virtue of the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Syed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 Basheer Ahmed's case referred above, the benefit of regrant order under INA(K) 42/198788 dated 21.08.1991 made in favour of defendant enures to the benefit of plaintiff to an extent of suit schedule property. Thus, it can be held that the presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act in favour of the defendant has been successfully rebutted by the plaintiff. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: GROUNDS  Because the learned Appellate Court has not applied its mind and has added no additional weightage to the evidence of the Appellants, while purely viewing the evidence at the surface level.  THAT the Appellate Court committed an error in upholding the decision of the Trial Court that the possession of the suit property was with the Respondents and not with the Appellants by purely basing it on the alleged sale deed dated 10.02.1969, which cannot be applied as the nature of the suit property is that of farm land and not vacant land. As per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - "Presumption regarding - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 entries in the records An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations [or in the patta book] shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor." In the case of Siddamma and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors AIR 1979 KANT 211, it is stated that "it is clear that nowhere the entries in the record of rights and the presumption arising out of the said entries have been referred to by the Tribunal. In the record of rights as stated in the earlier paragraph, the name of the brother of the 1st petitioner has been entered as the person cultivating the land in question from the year 1970-71 till the land was given to the 1st petitioner in the partition in the year 1973. Thereafter the name of the petitioner has been found as the person personally cultivating the land in question. Apart from that, her name has also been entered in column No. 9 as Khathedar. The extracts of the record of rights were made available before the Tribunal in view of the provisions contained in R. 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act raises a statutory presumption in respect of the entries in record of rights. That being so, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to raise a presumption arising out of the entries in the record of rights and also to consider the effect of the same. The order of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 the Tribunal is vitiated because of the fact that it has not considered the material evidence on record such as the entries in the record of rights and the effect of the same." The above stated case iterates the necessity of the Tribunal to presume that the entries arising out of record of rights are true and the fact that the Respondents never bothered to change the abovementioned records for more than 40 years was never considered by the appellate court. The Appellate Court in Para No. 17 held that the presumption as per Section 133 of the land Revenue Act has been successfully rebutted by the Respondents by virtue of the re-grant order INA(K) 42/1987-88 dated 21.08.1991 which is factually and legally false since the exhibits Ex. D1 to D7 containing the regrant order, MR Extracts bearing M.R. No. 28/92/93 and RTC Extracts from 1998-99 to 2020-21 clearly reinforces the presumption as to the correctness of the entries. That the Appellate court should have presumed the aspect of possession as under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.  THAT the Appellate court did not apply its mind in the matter regarding to possession as the Appellate court solely relied on the alleged sale deed dated - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 10.02.1969 and disregarded the overwhelming evidence provided by the Appellants. In the case of Sanjit Jana v Kalyani Naskar (2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4063), it is iterated that "7. Mr. Sanjib Mal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since both parties are claiming possession over the suit property the appeal Court below felt it necessary to hold local inspection of the suit property to ascertain the parties' possession but without taking said recourse, has affirmed the order of the learned Trial Judge. 8. In the present case, both the parties are claiming possession over the suit property, under such circumstances, an order of injunction in the form of status quo regarding possession over the suit property without ascertaining as to who is in possession of the suit property shall create numerous complications; as such, the appeal is required to be heard afresh to avoid such complications. 9. The order impugned, for the aforesaid reason, is set aside."  The Appellate court never considered the Appellants side with respect to possession of the suit property, as even a simple spot inspection would have shed light on the issue at hand. The Appellate Court failed to consider any scenario wherein the Appellants - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 were in possession of the suit property and failed to take any necessary step at determining the aspect of possession in this matter.  THAT Appellate Court did not consider the procedural aspect of regrant wherein the relevant authorities are required to conduct detailed investigations as to possession using records such as Mahazar, voter ID and ration card supported by a spot inspection report. The re-grant of land was conducted thoroughly after which the land is granted in favor of the Appellants during which the defendants failed to object or appeal the regrant application and choose to file a suit for injunction after more than 20 years from the date of regrant. The Respondents submitted the regrant order INA No. 42/1987-88 as Ex. P2/D1 in the lower court admitting to the knowledge of the regrant but never opposed or appealed the regrant order and as per section 3 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 "Powers of Deputy Commissioner to decide certain questions and appeals  If any question arises- a. whether any land was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State; or - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 b. whether any person is a holder of a village office; or c. whether any person is an authorized holder; or d. whether any person is an unauthorized holder, the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving the party affected an opportunity to be heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner decide the question. Any person aggrieved by such decision may file an appeal to the District Judge of the district within ninety days of such decision and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final. The provisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall be applicable to such appeal." Therefore, Section 3 offered ample opportunity for the Respondents to oppose or appeal the regrant when the application was submitted but have chosen not to do so despite having clear knowledge of the above.  THAT the Appellate Court has failed to deduce that for regrant of land as per Karnataka Village Abolitions Act, 1961, an officer of the state government would be appointed to conduct the necessary investigations and submit a report as to the feasibility of the regrant. In the case of K. Srinivas Murthy and Another v. The Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 Bangalore and Another, (2015) 1 AIR Kant R 253 "7. Smt. S. Susheela, the learned Government Advocate submits that all the authorities have proceeded as if an application had been filed by the appellants under Section 9 of the Act. According to her, no such application was filed by the appellants at any point of time. Under wrong notion the authorities have proceeded and passed orders as if the appellants have filed the application for regrant. However, the Deputy Commissioner has inspected the village and that the entire village was surveyed and no land is available for grant in favor of the appellants on an earlier occasion certain extent of lands were also granted to the appellants and their tenants pursuant to the applications made by different persons." The Appellate Court failing to recognize the basic steps involved in the process of regrant of land has led to the failure of imparting justice according to the established principles of law.  THAT the Appellate Court has failed to be cognizant of the law, wherein the Respondents are required to be in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit, which the Appellants have failed to prove. In the case, Sh. Lakhmi Chand & Ors v. Sh. Karan Singh & Anr, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5452, it is iterated that, "7. A reading of the aforesaid - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 paragraphs of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar's case (supra) shows that a person who is in possession can protect his possession against the world at large except the true owner. As against the true owner the equitable remedy of injunction is not to be granted in favour of a plaintiff who is not in lawful possession. In a suit where a plaintiff only claims injunction, but where title of a plaintiff is seriously disputed and which requires examination of complex questions of law and facts, then a simplicitor suit for injunction will not lie and it would be necessary for the plaintiff to seek a declaratory relief with respect to the ownership of the suit land before seeking injunction with respect thereto. The Supreme Court has also however held that if a suit is simplicitor for injunction but the parties proceed on the basis of title itself being in issue and accordingly the case is contested by leading evidence by the respective parties, then in such a case the simplicitor suit for injunction can be said to include the aspect of title which has to be decided. Thus, in any suit for injunction filed with respect to an immovable property where title of the suit property is disputed, courts have to examine the aspect of title which is directly in issue and it is only if the plaintiff is found to have title to the suit property, only then the plaintiff will be entitled to injunction, of course - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 provided that the plaintiff is also found to be in actual physical possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit." Hence, the Appellate Court should have delved deeper into the aspect of possession at the time of filing of the suit and falling to do so has resulted in such erroneous judgements and is liable to be set aside.  THAT the Appellate Court has failed to recognize the law, that a suit of declaration and injunction is not maintainable without possession of the suit property. In the case of Sri Aralappa Son Of Sri Chowrappa, Major vs Sri Jagannath Son Of Late Sri Chikka, on 24 August 2006, AIR 2007 KANT 91, it is iterated that "30. In a suit, for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, not only the plaintiff has to prove his title to the property, but also his possession over the property on the date of the suit. When the plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of the suit, relief of permanent injunction is not on appropriate consequential relief. The appropriate relief consequential to declaration of ownership would be recovery of possession of the property. When the plaintiff is out of possession of the property and does not seek relief for possession, a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable. The reason is not far to seek. It is well settled that no Court would - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 grant any relief which is not useful, or futile and not effective. If title of the plaintiff is to be declared and he is not in possession and possession is with the defendant or some other person, the plaintiff would be having title of the property and the person in possession would be having possessory title to the property. It would lead to anomalous situation and create confusion in the public, which is to be avoided. 31. Even if the plaintiff comes to Court asserting that he is in possession and that if it is found after trial that he was not in possession on the date of the suit, even then, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is liable to he dismissed as not maintainable, as no decree for permanent injunction can he granted if the plaintiff is not in possession on the date of the suit. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the plaintiff to amend the plaint before the judgment and seek relief of possession. Therefore, a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, by the plaintiff who is not in possession on the date of the suit, when he is able to seek further relief of recovery of possession also, omits to do so the Court shall not make any such declaration and the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable." Hence the original suit should not have been decreed and is liable to be set aside. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether the Appellate Court was wrong in not presuming that the possession of the suit property was with the Appellants as under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964? 2. Whether the Appellate Court was right in ignoring the procedure of Re-grant which involves spot inspections to determine possession? 3. Whether the Appellate Court was right in not appointing a commissioner or taking any other steps suo moto to determine the aspect of possession? 13. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts failed to note that in the year 1991, it is the defendant and two others who have got the regrant to the extent of 1/3rd share in the entire extent of 11.4 guntas of the land in Sy.No.95; from the time of his grandmother, defendant was in occupation of the suit property. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 14. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Puttahanumakka in favour of the plaintiffs did not convey any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property as Puttahanumakka herself did not posses any right to sell the property in favour of the plaintiffs. 15. Both the Courts also failed to note that the possession of the suit property was with the defendant from the time of Puttahanumakka. 16. Therefore, decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction without there being a prayer for possession has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admission of the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law 17. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments. 18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is to be noted that defendant is claiming himself as the foster son of Puttahanumakka, who is the wife of Matanayaka, one of the barabardars of the talavarike inam land in Sy.No.95 of Belagumba village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru. 20. Admittedly, Matanayaka died without leaving any male issues. He has left Puttahanumakka as his wife. The defendant is none other than the son of the daughter of Matanayaka and Puttahanumakka. 21. Out of the four brothers, Doddaiah son of Chikkanna @ Chikkanayaka, Gangamma wife of Chikkarangaiah and defendant have claimed 1/3rd share as the regrant. 22. Tashildar after considering the application filed by the Doddaiah son of Chikkanna @ Chikkanayaka, Gangamma wife of Chikkarangaiah and defendant, granted 1/3rd share in the regrant. Before the regrant, there was a - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 registered sale deed executed by Puttahanumakka in favour of the plaintiff dated 10.02.1969. 23. In other words, Puttahanumakka exercised the right as a wife of one of the barabadars namey Matanayaka and sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. During her lifetime, Puttahanumakka did not challenge the said alienation. 24. Suppressing these aspects of the matter, as an independent claim, the defendant and two other persons approached the Tashildar in the year 1991. Admittedly, plaintiff is not a party to such a proceeding before the Tahsildar. 25. When a portion of the property that has fallen to the share of Matanayaka enjoyed by Puttahanumakka during her lifetime, after Matanayaka died, has been conveyed by Puttahanumakka in favour of the plaintiff by way of the registered sale deed. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37716 RSA No. 683 of 2024 26. Therefore, the defendant cannot question the alienation made by Puttahanumakka especially when the defendant is only a foster son of Puttahanumakka and not the direct barabardar or lineal decedent of barabardar namely Matanayaka. 27. Under such circumstances, decreeing the suit by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference in this appeal. 28. Accordingly, following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61 CT: BHK