- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.338 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: THE BR. MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION MANDYA BRANCH, NO.153/A, NEAR DC OFFICE OPP. MOUNT CARMEL CONVENT K. R. ROAD, SUBHAS NAGAR MANDYA-571401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI MALIPATIL P S, ADVOCATE) AND: RAMANJANEYA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH A/A 67 YEARS R/AT NO.16, MUNICIPAL KHATA NO.10365 GOVT. SCHOOL BEHIND ROAD UPPARAHALLI, SOMESHWARA POST TUMKUR-572102 …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the same was purchased from one Puttamma under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1997. It is further averred in the plaint that immediately after the purchase of the said site, the plaintiff has constructed residential house by borrowing loan from bank. The plaintiff is a retired employee of Syndicate Bank, Rajaji Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. The Branch Manager of the bank has called and informed him that he has received a phone call and then letter from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 Subhashnagar Branch, Mandya on 16.09.2010 and 13.12.2020 that they are making detailed enquiry regarding the title, possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and they have doubt that the plaintiff has constructed his house on the property mortgaged to them. Hence, immediately, the plaintiff has got issued notice on 10.01.2011 through his advocate and brought to the notice of the defendants that the property of plaintiff is entirely different what they are shown as mortgaged old Sy.No.16/1, new Khata No.483, measuring 120x40 feet, situated at Upparahalli, 2nd Division, Tumakuru. But the plaintiff has constructed house in his site bearing khatha No.10365 in Sy.No.16. Further, the vendor of the plaintiff Puttamma no way concerned that the person who have mortgaged to the defendant's institution. Therefore, there was no connection to the property of plaintiff and to the alleged loan sanctioned in favour of M/s. Maruthi Silk Twisting Industries. Thereafter, the defendants making hectic efforts to seize the house of plaintiff and disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.29/2011. But the said suit was dismissed on 30.08.2016. Later, he preferred an appeal in R.A. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 No.3/2016 wherein, the plaintiff has filed an IA under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the measurement of the land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. Therefore, the appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit before the Jurisdictional Court. Hence, the present suit is filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 4. In response to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared and defendant No.1 filed the written statement denying the entire averments made in the plaint. It is contended that property bearing site and building in old Sy.No. 16/1, Upparahalli, Municipal Khata No.483 measuring east-west 120 feet and north-south 40 feet is the property belongs to one Linganna and same has been purchased by Linganna under registered sale deed dated 08.08.2016 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. After his death, his legal representatives namely, Smt. Siddagangamma, Leelavathi and Ravikumar becomes absolute owners. During lifetime of Linganna, he has given the written statement schedule property as security to the loan raised by M/s. Maruthi Silk Twisting Industry to tune of Rs.28.86 lakhs - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 and he has executed registered mortgage deed dated 25.01.1997 in favour of this defendant. The said M/s. Maruthi Silk Twisting Industry become a defaulter in repaying the loan to this defendant and this defendant has taken recovery action against the loan and also co-obligant and the primary assets i.e., plant and machinery were taken over under Section 29 of the SFCs Act and sold for Rs.1.25 lakhs on 24.09.2001. Afterwards, the petition under 31(1)(aa) of SFCs Act against the guarantors has filed before the District Judge, Mandya in Miss No.43/1999. The defendant has also taken action under SARFAESI Act and possession of property under provisions of said Act was taken on 21.07.2009 itself. When the defendant has taken action under provisions of SARFAESI Act, the plaintiff has approached This Court with mala fide intention to knock off the property of the defendant, which comes within the written statement schedule property. The plaintiff has no right or title over the same. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the sale deed and other documents, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and granted the relief of permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.73/2024. 6. The First Appellate Court also having considered the defence which was taken, formulated the points and having re- appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, with regard to the mortgage deed is concerned, the same is compared in paragraph 24 about suit schedule property and written statement schedule property and comes to the conclusion that both the properties are different not only in the measurement but also in the identity of the property and with regard to the boundaries are also, it is different. Hence, not accepted the case of the appellant and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts committed an error in granting the relief of the declaration and permanent injunction even though it was proved that the mortgage executed by the borrower is in favour of the dependent/appellant even before the execution of the sale by Linganna in favour of the plaintiff. The very contention of the counsel for the appellant that when the mortgage deed was executed on 25.01.1997, the sale deed was executed on 09.06.1997, thus, ought not to have executed the sale deed and both the Courts failed to take note of the same. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also considering the material and record, it discloses that there was a mortgage deed earlier to the sale deed in favour of the defendant. The Trial court as well as the First Appellate Court come to the conclusion that the property which the defendant is claiming is different from property of the plaintiff. Particularly, the First Appellate Court taken note of the same in paragraph 24 i.e., the property number as well as the khata number and so also the extent and comes to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 conclusion that they are not tallies with each other. Apart from that boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and in the written statement property are different. Hence, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that upon cursory reading of the aforesaid two schedules ex-facie it appears that there is lot of variance and inconsistency not only in the measurements but also in the boundaries. To elaborate, suit schedule property is consisting of small site to an extent of 25 x 60 feet whereas the written statement schedule property is the big site measuring 120 x 40 feet and so also width is concerned, there is a lot of difference. Hence, comes to the conclusion that the claim made by the defendant is not in the respect of the suit schedule property and rightly comes to the conclusion that the properties are different and claim made by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction is in respect of the suit schedule property and not in respect of the written statement schedule property. When such finding is given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46201 RSA No. 338 of 2025 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN