- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2016 IN RSA No. 510/2016 BETWEEN: Y.N GANGADHARAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, S/O NANDEESHAPPA R/AT. V. YERADAKERE VILLAGE Y. MALLAPURA POST, SINGATAGERE HOBLI TQ. KADUR, DIST. CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548 …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. P. NATARAJU & LOKESH D.K, ADVS) AND: B. GANGADHARAPPA AGED 54 YEARS, S/O BASAPPA R/AT. HULEGONDI VILLAGE Y. MALLAPURA POST, SINGATAGARE HOBLI TQ. KADUR, DIST. CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548 …RESPONDENT (BY SRIYUTHS. K.S GANESHA & S.Y SUMA DIXIT, ADVS) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 07.12.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 67/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 24.06.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO. 104/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC., KADUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION; IN RSA NO. 511/2016 BETWEEN: Y.N GANGADHARAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, S/O NANDEESHAPPA R/AT. V. YERADAKERE VILLAGE Y. MALLAPURA POST, SINGATAGERE HOBLI Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 TQ. KADUR, DIST. CHIKKAMAGALURU -577548. ...APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. P NATARAJU & LOKESH D.K, ADVS) AND: B. GANGADHARAPPA AGED 54 YEARS, S/O BASAPPA R/AT. HULEGONDI VILLAGE Y. MALLAPURA POST, SINGATAGARE HOBLI TQ. KADUR, DIST. CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.S GANESHA, ADV) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 07.12.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.68/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 24.06.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.56/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) & JMFC., KADUR. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals arise out of the common judgment passed in R.A.No.67/2009 and R.A.No.68/2009 dated 07.12.2015 by the first Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.104/2006 dated 24.06.2009 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kadur and the judgment and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 decree passed in O.S.No.56/2007 dated 24.06.2009 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kadur. 2. The respondent in both appeals i.e., B.Gangadharappa has filed a suit in O.S.No.104/2006 for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction and the appellant in both the appeals i.e., Y.N.Gangadharappa filed a suit in O.S.No.56/2007 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, against B.Gangadharappa. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred by their names. 4. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows: B.Gangadharappa had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.104/1AP1 measuring 01 acre situated in V.Yaradakere village. It is the case of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 01.10.2002 from Vrushabhendrappa. It is contended that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant filed a collusive suit against Kalleshappa and others and compromised the matter in R.A.No.55/2005 and it is contended that the defendant i.e., Y.N.Gangadharappa got allotted the suit schedule property to him and he is trying to get the Katha in his name on the strength of the decree in R.A. No.55/2005. It is contended that neither the plaintiff nor his vendor is a party in R.A. No.55/2005 and the compromise decree passed in R.A. No.55/2005 is not binding on the B.Gangadharappa, and B.Gangadharappa filed the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction and accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Y.N.Gangadharappa filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.104/2006. It contended that the one Ujjinappa had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 two wives namely Marulamma and Kallamma. Marulamma had a daughter by name, Paramma. Paramma had a son by name Nandeeshappa. It is contended that Marulamma and Nandeeshappa did not take the properties of Ujjinappa. Nandeeshappa had a son, who is the defendant in O.S.No.104/2006 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.56/2007. It is contended that the second wife i.e., Kallamma had a son by name Kalleshappa. Kalleshappa married Gowramma. Gowramma and Kalleshappa died without any issues. Gowramma adopted a son, by name H.S.Kalleshappa under a registered adoption deed. It is contended that the Gowramma and Kalleshappa enjoyed the properties of Ujjinappa. It is contended that, by a compromise entered into in R.A. No.55/2005, Y.N.Gangadharappa was allotted the suit property. The plaintiffs’ vendor has no title to the suit property, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. Y.N.Gangadharappa, who is the defendant in O.S.No.104/2006, filed a suit in O.S. No.56/2007 reiterating the written statement averments in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 O.S.No.104/2006. B.Gangadharappa filed a written statement reiterating the plaint averments in O.S.No.104/2006. 7. By clubbing both the suits, the trial Court framed the relevant issues, and recorded the common evidence. 8. B.Gangadharappa, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.104/2006 was examined as PW1, two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 and 13 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. 9. Y.N.Gangadharappa, the defendant in O.S.No.104/2006, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.56/2007 examined himself as DW1, and examined 3 witnesses as DW2 to DW4, and marked 21 documents. 10. Earlier, the plaintiff in O.S.No.56/2007 was examined as PW.1 and 21 documents marked as EX.P1 to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 P21 and the evidence was continued in O.S.No.104/2006 wherein, Y.N.Gangadharappa was treated as PW.1. 11. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing on both the sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in O.S.No.104/2006 vide judgment dated 24.06.2009. It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of property bearing Sy.No.104/1AP1 measuring 01 acre situated at V.Yaradakere Village with boundaries shown in the schedule. A permanent injunction order was granted restraining the defendant, Y.N.Gangadharappa, his men and servants, from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit in O.S.No.56/2007 was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.06.2009. 12. Y.N.Gangadharappa, aggrieved by the common judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.104/2006 and O.S.No.56/2007, preferred the appeals in R.A.No.67/2009 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 and in R.A.No.68/2009. The First appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the relevant points for consideration. The first appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal in R.A.No.67/2009, and allowed the appeal in R.A.No.68/2009 and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.56/2007, and partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.56/2007, and declared that the plaintiff in O.S.No.56/2007 is the owner of 4 acres of land including 12 guntas of karab in Sy.No.104/1AP1 and the defendant in O.S.No.56/2007 is hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 13. Y.N.Gangadharappa, aggrieved by the impugned common judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 14. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Y.N.Gangadharappa. i.e., the appellant in both the appeals. 15. Learned counsel appearing for Y.N.Gangadharappa submits that Y.N.Gangadharappa is the owner to the extent of 5 acres 12 guntas, wherein, the first appellate Court had declared that Y.N.Gangadharappa is the absolute owner to the extent of 4 acres. He submits that First appellate Court has not adequately appreciated the entire evidence on record, and committed an error in partly decreeing the suit in O.S.No.56/2007. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. 16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The first appellate Court considered Ex.P4 i.e., B.Gangadharappa, has acquired the title regarding the suit schedule property in O.S.No.104/2006, under a registered sale deed marked as Ex.P4. The contention of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 Y.N.Gangadharappa i.e., the plaintiff in O.S.No.56/2007 is that the property of B.Gangadharappa is entirely different, and Y.N.Gangadharappa has claimed his title in Sy.No.104/1AP1 under a compromise decree passed in R.A.No.55/2005. The plaintiff in O.S.No.104/2006 has denied that Y.N.Gangadharappa had acquired the title by a compromise decree passed in R.A.No.55/2005, and the first appellate Court by considering the entire material on record, recorded its finding in para 24, 25 and 26 which reads as under: “24. P.W.1 B. Gangadharappa has admitted that defendant Y.N. Gangadharappa has got a property after the property measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of land in the above survey number. Y.N. Gangadharappa has produced Ex.D.18 in this court. It shows that Sy.No.104 was measuring about 40 acres 22 guntas. He has produced Ex.D.19, which shows that Marula Siddappa has sold some land to Muddappa. Ex.D.23 shows that Sy.No.104/1A was in the joint katha of Gowramma and Kallamma. Later it was made in the name of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 Kalleshappa S/o Shivarudrappa. Ex.D.26 and D.27 also show that in Sy.No.104/1A measuring 5 acres including 12 guntas of karab was in the land of Kalleshappa S/o Shivarudrappa. As already stated, Y.N. Gangadharappa in his plaint and also in the written statement has stated that the plaintiff B. Gangadharappa has purchased Sy.No.104/5 from Vrushabendrappa. But it is not correct. 25. The plaintiff B. Gangadharappa is claiming only 1 acre of land in Sy.No.104/1AP1. Though defendant Y.N.Gangadharappa claimed 5 acres of land including 12 guntas of karab, he has clearly admitted in his evidence that B.Gangadharappa is in possession of 1 acre of land in the above said survey number. He has also admitted the sale in favour of B.Gangadharappa. If out of 5 acres, 1 acre is deducted towards the sale of land to plaintiff B. Gangadharappa, the remaining land in Sy.No.104/1AP1 would be 4 acres including 12 guntas of karab. Therefore I feel that the defendant Y.N. Gangadharappa is entitled for 4 acres of land including 12 guntas of karab in the suit survey number - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 i.e., 104/1AP1. This court has got ample power to mould the relief. 26. The learned trial judge has erred in not correctly appreciating the documents produced by the defendant Y.N.Gangadharappa. The documents now produced before the court marked at Ex.D.18 to D.29 clearly indicate that the defendant Y.N. Gangadharappa had 4 acres including 12 guntas of karab. The learned trial judge erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendant Y.N. Gangadharappa. The judgment and decree of the trial court calls for interference at the hands of this court in part. Hence for the above reasons, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the negative, point No.3 in the affirmative and point No.4 to 6 partly affirmative.” 18. The first appellate Court has considered the entire evidence on record, and has rightly passed the impugned common judgment. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28630 RSA No. 510 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 511 of 2016 judgments or any substantial questions of law that arises for consideration in these appeals. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decrees passed in R.A.67/2009 and in R.A.No.68/2009 dated 07.12.2015 by the learned First Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru, is hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. (iv) In view of the dismissal of the appeals, pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration, and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 18