- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1874 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT HOMBAHANUMI W/O SRI HANUMAIAH AGED 56 YEARS R/AT AGARA VILLAGE THATHAGUNI POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 062 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE REVANNA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE CHIKKANAHALLI POST TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562 130 3. SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O HANUMAIAH AGED 52 YEARS R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 560 062 4. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O ASHWATH AGED 44 YEARS R/AT SIDDANAPALYA THATHAGUNI (V) AND POST, KENGERI HOBLI Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 062 5. SRI HANUMAIAH S/O CHANNAVERAPPA AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 560 062 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAMESHA.H.E FOR SRI B.RAVINDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI APPAJI S/O HOMBAIAH AGED 69 YEARS R/AT VAJRAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 560 062 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.S.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OR CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.75/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.277/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Ramesh H E, learned counsel for Ravindra Prasad B, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri H.S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendants in O.S No.277/2011 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. They suffered the decree of declaration and injunction in the said suit. Operative portion of the judgment passed in the suit reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost. It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Consequently, the defendants, their agents etc., are hereby restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.” 3. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an R.A No.32/2015 which was re-numbered as R.A No.75/2019 on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. 4. First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and thereafter, by the judgment dated 15.03.2021 dismissed the appeal concurring with the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit for declaration and permanent injunction came to be filed in respect of landed property bearing Survey No.57/6B measuring 20 guntas situated at Vajarahalli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, bounded on the East by land of Kariyappa and Chikkathimmaiah, West by: land of Hanumaiah etc., North by: land of Channayappa and South by: land of Hombaiah @ Yalavaiah hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’. 6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that land bearing Survey No.57/6 totally measuring 3 acres 11 guntas including 1 acre of kharab originally belonged to Kempamma, wife of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 Hanumaiah alias Helavaiah. Kempamma along with her minor son sold the said property in favour of Thimmakka, wife of Garuda Hanumaiah under registered sale dated 18.06.1947. Plaintiff is the grandson of said Thimmakka. 7. Plaintiff’s father by name Hombaiah had mortgaged land in Sy.No.57/6 in favour of one Venkataiah, Son of Hanumaiah, under the registered deed dated 23.09.1964 which was later redeemed on 17.01.1976. He had also mortgaged the same land in favour of said Venkataiah vide registered deed dated 28.05.1962. Thereafter Smt.Kalamma who was the wife of said Venkataiah and her children redeemed the same by registered deed dated 20.11.2004 in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Land has underwent ‘phodi’ proceedings and sub numbers were given. In such division effected between plaintiff and his brother Chikka Hombaiah, suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff and revenue entries were mutated in the name of the plaintiff. Plaintiff obtained loan from P.L.D Bank and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 9. It is further contended that the defendants without the knowledge of the plaintiff, in collusion with the revenue authorities meddled with the revenue entries. Therefore, plaintiff had to file necessary appeal before the competent authority and matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. 10. It is at that juncture, plaintiff found that there is some foul play, when defendants tried to interfere with the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.277/2011 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. 11. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance through their counsel and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. 12. Defendants contended that one Channarayappa who is none other than the husband of the first defendant and father of second defendant purchased the land bearing Sy.No.57/6 measuring 11 guntas from Hombahanumaiah, S/o Hanumaiah, vide registered sale deed dated 13.03.1958 vide Ex.D.1. Said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 Channarayappa was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. Later on, land was phoded and given the number as 57/6B. 13. It is their further contention that after the death of Channarayappa, defendants inherited the suit property and got the revenue entries transferred into their names and sought for dismissal of the suit. 14. The Trial Court after raising necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing the arguments of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by considered judgment dated 18.08.2015 inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.11 to 15 as under: 11. The learned Counsel for the defendants took me through Ex.D2 and argued that the defendant No.1 had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.57/6, measuring 1 acre from the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has denied the same as false. Of course, Ex.D2 indicates that the sale deed appears to have been executed in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of 1 acre in the land bearing Sy.No.57/6. It is to be noted that when the plaintiff's grand mother purchased 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.57/6 as per Ex.P1 and when admittedly a division had taken place between the plaintiff's grand father and plaintiff's - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 uncle and when 20 guntas each had fallen to their share, the question of plaintiff executing sale deed in respect of 1 acre as per Ex.D2 does not survive for consideration. Assuming for a moment that the plaintiff has executed sale deed as per Ex.D2, nothing prevented the defendant No.1 to got enter her name in the concerned revenue records. Except Ex.D1 & Ex.D2, the defendants have not placed any material on record to show that they have acted upon Ex.D2. Though, mere revenue records does not confer any title over the disputed property, the defendants keeping quiet for all these considerable length of time raises reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the defence put forth by the defendants. 12. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the Registered Mortgage Deeds dated 28.05.1962 and 23.09.1964 executed by plaintiff's father in favour of Venkataiah S/o.Hanumaiah in respect of land bearing Sy. No.57, measuring 2 acres 2 guntas. Ex.P4 is the redemption of Mortgage Deed dated 20.11.2004 executed by the legal heirs of said Venkatappa. The learned Counsel for defendants took me through the sharas appearing at Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 and argued that as the loan was repaid by the plaintiff's father vide shara dated 15.11.1964 and 17.01.1976 the question of again executing Ex.D4 does not survive for consideration and it appears that only with an intention to engulf the suit property, the plaintiff has created ExP4. Of course, the sharas at Ex.P2 & ExP3 goes to show that on those specified dates, loan was repaid and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 accordingly shara was written. The contention of the plaintiff to the effect that as the said shara was not executed on a registered document, Ex. P4 was executed by the legal heirs of late Venkatappa appears to be forceful. There is no reason to disbelieve genuinenity of Ex.P4. Be that as it may, as already observed, the material on record clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. 13. Ex P7 being the MR 3/1980-81 clearly goes to show that suit schedule property stands transferred in the name of plaintiff. Ex P9 being the RTC extract pertaining to the year 1979-80 and Ex.P.8 being the RTC Extract pertaining to year 2011-12 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property. Ex P.11 is the Tax paid Receipt. Ex P12 is the Document to show that as to when a Phode was effected in the land bearing Sy.No.57/6. Ex.P.14 is the Settlement Akar Bandh in respect Sy.No.57/6B. ExP6 is the Certificate issued by Tahasildar, Ramanagar which goes to show that the plaintiff is the cultivator of suit property along with another property. Ex.P17 goes to show that the Plaintiff had mortgaged the suit property in favour of PLD Bank. All these documents makes it crystal clear that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of suit property. 14. In so far as the appreciation of oral evidence of P.W.I and 2 is concerned, though, they were cross- examined at length by the learned Counsel for - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 defendants, nothing worth is elicited so as to discard their testimony given in the chief-examination. In so far as the appreciation of oral evidence of D.W.1 is concerned, as already observed, he has admitted that a portion had been allotted to plaintiff's father and plaintiff's uncle in the land bearing sy no. 57/6B. D.W.1 has further admitted that his father had purchased 20 guntas from the plaintiff's uncle. Such being the case, the defendants cannot lay their claim over the suit property which had fallen to the share of plaintiff's father. D.W.I has further admitted that the plaintiffs father had availed loan by mortgaging the suit property in favour of PLD Bank. In so far as the appreciation of D.W.2 is concerned, he has admitted that in the year 1968, a Phod was effected. He has further deposed that at the time of Phod, proper measurement was not carried out. If at all proper measurement did not carry out, nothing prevented the defendants to approach the competent Authority. D.W.2 has further admitted that the defendants are his close relative. D.W.3 has admitted that the plaintiff's father and brother had effected partition in respect of disputed survey number. He has further admitted that the father of the defendant had purchased 11 guntas from the plaintiff's father. D.W.3 has further admitted that he does not know about the transactions pertaining to Sale Deed allegedly executed in favour of father of defendant. D.W.3 has admitted about the contents of Ex.P25 and 26. I am not inclined to appreciate the entire evidence adduced by both the parties as the material on record clearly goes to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of suit property. 15. It is pertinent to point out in this context that the boundaries as shown in the plaint schedule is entirely different from the boundaries of property as shown in Ex.D1 & Ex.D2 as claimed by the defendants. The defendants have not placed any material on record to show that they are the absolute owners and in possession of the property within the boundaries of suit schedule property. On the other hand, the entire materials on record clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit this issue in the property. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.” 15. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal in R.A No.32/2015 which was re-numbered as RA No.75/2019 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. 16. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail especially on the main ground which the defendants canvassed that the Trial Court failed to consider the probative value of Ex.D-1/sale deed dated 13.03.1958 and D-2/sale deed dated 20.05.1987 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 and by the judgment dated 15.03.2021 dismissed the appeal inter alia holding at paragraphs 25 and 26 as under: “25. It is also most pertinent and relevant to mention herein that unlike Appaji, the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and his late mother were very much residing near the suit land. If the execution of document at Ex.D.2 were to be true, then nothing prevented the late 1st defendant and her LRs to approach the Revenue Authorities well on time so as to obtain or get Mutation of Revenue documents in respect of the said extent of 1 acre in the land in Sy.No.57/6. No attempt was made either by late 1st defendant or by other defendants in this behalf. No purchaser of ordinary prudent would keep quite for a period, of more than a decade without obtaining the Mutation of Revenue documents in respect of purchased land and this fact is also worth considering wile answering the genuinity of the document at Ex.D.2. Hence, for the said reasons and due to non-pleading of the fact vis-a-vis Ex.D.2 in the written statement filed before the trial court, this court of Appeal is of the firm view that Ex.D.2 cannot be acted upon at this stage. This court of Appeal is also of the serious view that the defendants by not pleading in respect of Ex.D.2 in their written statement before the trial court, had given no scope for the trial court - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 to frame any issue touching the alleged fact of execution of sale deed by plaintiff as per Ex.D.2. This omission on the part of the defendants is therefore serious in nature and the same in turn questions the credibility of the say of defendants. 26. For the afore-mentioned reasons, defendants have utterly failed to prove and establish the fact that Thimmakka, the grandmother of plaintiff and the of 2nd defendant had acquired land beyond the extent of 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.57/6. The defendants have not established the fact that in the family partition, Hombaiah, the father of plaintiff, had acquired an extent of land measuring 1 acre and whereas Homba hanumaiah, the uncle of 2nd defendant, had acquired an extent of 11 guntas out of purchased extent of 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.57/6. In the absence of any material documents in this behalf, this court of Appeal has no confidence to act upon the document at Ex.D.2 as produced before the trial court and on the documents at Exs.D.3 to D.5 as produced before this court of Appeal by preferring IA u/O XLI Rule 27 of CPC and to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff had sold an extent measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.57/6 in favour of late 1st defendant. That more over - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 the Exs.D.3 to D.5 cannot be treated as primary and substantive evidence. That they can at the most be treated as corroborative piece of evidence so far as the fact of alleged sale of extent of 1 acre by plaintiff himself in Sy.No.57/6. Thus in the absence of Title Deed, the primary and substantive evidence, the corroborative evidence at Exs.D.3 to D.5 cannot be acted upon.” 17. Being further aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court in this Second Appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:  The findings given by the courts below on the Issues are not based on any evidence on record but are based purely on assumptions and presumptions, and the Courts below without considering the material on record in a proper perspective have decreed the suit of the Respondent herein and accordingly they deserve to be set aside in limine.  Both the Court have to observed it that the specific case of the Respondent with regard to only 0.20 Guntas of land in Sy.No.57/6B whereas the Appellants have specifically contended that, one Chanarayappa who was the father of the Appellant has purchased 0.11 Guntas of land in Sy. No.57/6 under registered sale deed dated 13- 03-1958. Subsequently, it was phoded and renumbered as Sy.No.57/6B. In support of this contention the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 Appellant have produced the sale deed dated 13-03- 1958, this document clearly establishes Ex-D1 the ownership and possession of Sri. Chanarayappa over 0.11 Guntas of land in Sy.No.57/6B. Moreover, in support of this the Documentary evidence as per the evidence DW-1 to 3 adduced oral evidence in corroboration of Ex-D1 establishing that by virue of inheritance Appellants have succeeded to 0.11 Guntas of land in Sy.No.57/6B, Even this Ex-D1 is not in dispute. So when such is the case the Respondents have not disputed Ex-D1 anywhere and even there is no any suggestion in the course of Cross-Examination regarding Ex-D1. Under these circumstances the burden heavily cast upon the Respondent to prove the existence of the suit schedule property.  It is submitted that the Ex-P1 to 4 are pertaining to Sy No.57/6 with regard to purchase as well as mortgage has admitted by PW-1 himself. In the examination in chief itself that Sy No.57/6 fell to his father share by name Sri.Homabaiah and also another share in favour of his brother Sri.Hombahanumaiaha, Admittedly, Sri.Homba hanumaiaha got 0.11 Guntas and 09 Guntas of Kharab in all 20 Guntas into his share and Respondent's father got 01 Acre of land in Sy.No.57/6. As per the Ex-D1 Channarayappa purchased Sri.Hombahanumaiaha share to the 20 Guntas under Ex- D1 and Plaintiffs father who had got 01 Acre of land in suit survey number to the extent of 01 Acre. In term, the Respondent himself sold out 01 Acre of land in favour of Appellant's mother by name Smt. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 Munihanumakka under the sale deed Ex-D2 in the year 1987, by virtue of Ex-D1 and D2 the Appellants became the lawful successors of 01 Acre 20 Guntas in Survey No.57/6B. Hence it is crystal clear that the Respondent No.1 absolutely has no other property in suit Survey number.  The Courts below have failed to observe that, even as per the Ex-P1 itself it is evident that, Smt. Kempamma w/o Hanumaiha @ Helavaiah sold half share towards northern side under registered sale deed dated 18-06- 1947 in survey No.57/6 totally measuring 03 Acre 11 Guntas. Half share means 01 Acre 20 Guntas including Kharb so when as per Ex-D1 20 Guntas purchased by the Appellants father and 01 Acre is purchased by Appellants mother (Defendant) so there is no alleged suit schedule property of the Respondent in in existence. But the Courts below has failed to see the documentary evidence Ex-P1, Ex-D1 & D2 while disposing the case on merits without looking into the documentary proof. The Courts below has decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent herein which is not in existence at the spot with fictious boundaries. Hence, the Judgment and Decree passed against the Appellant is opposed to the facts and materials on record.  The Courts below have failed to see that the very primary title deeds of Sy No.57/6B clearly establish that there is no property belongs to the Respondent in Sy No.57/6B and also Respondent has failed to establishes that there is existence of his property as alleged in the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 plaint. Such being the position the courts below ought to have dismissed the suit of the Respondent.  The Courts below have failed to see that the Respondent has not established his case at all on the strength of material on facts and the Court below only on assumption and presumption have passed the judgment and decree in favour of the Respondent. Such being the position the Courts below ought to have dismissed the suit of the Respondent.  The Courts below have failed to see that the Respondent to make unlawful gain have filed the suit against the Appellants.  The Courts below has erred in passing the Judgment and Decree in favour of the Respondent without their being any title in the name of the Respondents and only based on the revenue records has passed the Judgment and Decree that too the revenue proceedings are pending for consideration.” SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether the Courts below were justified in confirming the judgment and Decree in favour of the Respondent as against this Appellant having regard to evidence on record? 2. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Court below is based on the title of the Respondent/Plaintiff? 3. Whether the Courts below in the absence of suit property stands in the name of the Respondent was - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 pleased to pass Judgment and Decree against the Appellant when the title deeds stands in the name of the Appellant father and mother? 4. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Court below is in the light of the pleadings of the parties and evidentiary material on record are legally sustainable? 5. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Court below has justified in confirming the judgment on the strength of material on facts?” 16. Sri Ramesh H.E. learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly assessed the probative value of Exs.D-1 and D-2 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 17. It is also contended that the reasoning assigned by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court that Ex.D-2 was not addressed to in the written statement before the Trial Court and therefore non framing of issue by the Trial Court did not vitiate the judgment passed by the Trial Court is incorrect, inasmuch as, there is a documentary evidence placed on record and the Trial Court was not precluded from framing additional - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 issue as is contemplated under Orders XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. Therefore without raising the proper issue and recording a finding has resulted in miscarriage of justice and so far admitting the appeal for further consideration of substantial questions of law referred to supra. 19. Per contra, Sri H.S.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment. 20. He would further contend that the phoding of the land in respect of 11 guntas said to have been purchased by Channarayappa which was given sub number as 57/6B has resulted in the confusion inasmuch as, it is the plaintiff who got the land phoded along with his brother. 21. Therefore Sy.No.57/6 has been divided into Sy.No.57/6A and 57/6B and assigning the same number to the 11 guntas of the land has created confusion which has been set right by the Assistant Commissioner by remitting the matter to the Tahsildar. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 22. In the meantime, since there was interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the defendants, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 23. He would further contend that learned Trial Judge as well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court rightly considered the material on record and have held that the land that is conveyed to Channarayappa by his vendor which is now being enjoyed by the defendants has got nothing to do with the suit property and therefore, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which needs no interference in this appeal. 24. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 25. On such perusal of the material on the record, it is crystal clear that the title to the suit property flew from the Thimmakka which has been enjoyed by the plaintiff. 26. Thimmakka got the property by way of registered sale deed dated 18.06.1947 from the original owner-Kempamma, wife of Hanumaiah alias Helavaiah. Thus, there is continuity in - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 the title insofar as the suit property is concerned, as is propounded by the plaintiff. 27. Whereas defendants have taken a contention that they are the owners of 11 guntas of property having purchased from Hombahanumaiah, Son of Hanumaiah, vide registered sale deed dated 13.03.1958/Ex.D-1. 28. Admittedly extent of the land that has been sold under the said sale deed is to the extent of 11 guntas. Where exactly is 11 guntas of land that defendants’ father purchased is a matter that has to be established by the defendants. In that regard, Exs.D-1 and D-2 are relied on by the defendants. 29. However with regard to the contents of Ex.D-2/sale deed dated 20.05.1987 there was no plea taken by the defendants specifically in their written statement. 30. Therefore, learned Trial Judge has noted the title to the suit property by way of two sale deeds executed by Kempamma in favour of Thimmakka and then the subsequent phoding of the land by the revenue authorities and giving sub - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 number to the land of the plaintiff as 57/6B is just and proper and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 31. Defendants though took up a contention that their land is part of Sy.No.57/6B only on the basis of revenue entry, were not able to substantiate that the 11 guntas of land sold by Homba Hanumaiah, son of Hanumaiah in favour of Channarayappa is not the land which is the subject matter of the suit property. 32. Accordingly, both the Courts have rightly considered the probative value of the documents placed on record by the plaintiff and defendants, and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff which requires no interference by this Court in the Second Appeal. 33. In view of the foregoing discussions, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, do not merit for further consideration. 34. Accordingly, the following: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34385 RSA No. 1874 of 2021 ORDER Appeal meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43