1 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.253 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. PRAMEELA W/O. LATE ARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. REKHA D/O. LATE ARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT HEGGADADEVANAPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 162 3. LAKKAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 3A. BYRAMMA W/O. LATE RANGAIAHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE KODIPALYA, MUDURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 205 3B. LAKSHAMMA W/O. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE, HULALU HULALU UPANAGAR POST YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 022 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 3C. SHARADMA W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE 3D. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE APPELLANTS NO.3C AND 3D ARE R/AT HEGGADADEVANAPURA, ALUR (POST) DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH - 562 162 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. DORAI BABU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADVOCATE) AND: *1 SRI VENKATARAMAIAH S/O. LATE. NARASIMHAIAH, R/AT HEGGADADAVANAPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 562162 *1(a) NARASIMHAMURTHY.H.V S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HEGGADEVANAPURA DASAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 162 *SINCE DEAD BY LRS *1(b) SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.V S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT HEGGADEVANAPURA DASAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562 162 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.3/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2017 PASSED IN OS No.326/2009 (OLD No.2119/2005) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: *Corrected vide Court order dated 17.11.2025 3 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.S.Dorai Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Archana Murthy P., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.A.Sampath, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Present appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.326/2009 which was confirmed in RA No.03/2018. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 4.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory injunction in respect of immovable property bearing Sy.No.78/1 measuring 26½ guntas situated at Heggadadevanapura, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru 4 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 bounded on East by Sy.No.78/2, West by land of defendants, North by land belonging to Anjanappa, Ranganna and Byregowda and South by Sy.No.78/1 belongs to brother of plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as suit property). 4.2. It is contended that land in Sy.No.78 of Heggadadevanapura totally measuring 4 acre 14 guntas at an undisputed point of time which is a Government land. Father of the plaintiff purchased the land to the extent of 30 guntas in the said land as per the sale deed dated 18.06.1940. Thereafter, land in Sy.No.78 was further sub-divided into 78/1 and 78/2. Property measuring 31 guntas assigned with Sy.No.78/2 and remaining extent of 3 acres 24 guntas assigned with 78/1. 4.3. Father of the plaintiff purchased an extent of 2 acres of the land in Sy.No.78/1 by registered sale deed dated 12.10.1949 and thereafter, he also purchased the land to the extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.78/1 as per the sale 5 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 deed dated 20.02.1950. Thus, only land to an extent of 24 guntas remained in Sy.No.78/1. 4.4. After the demise of the father of the plaintiff, plaintiff succeeded to the properties left behind by his father in which the plaintiff sold 1 acre 11 guntas in favour of one Veerabhadraiah and remaining 1 acre 29 guntas of land remained with him was spread over in two bits namely in 1 acre and 29 guntas respectively. 4.5. Insofar as those properties are concerned, defendant is not asserting any rights over the bit of the land measuring 29 guntas. However, defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.78/1 as the same is abutting to the land of the defendants. 4.6. Out of those properties, brother of the plaintiff has taken 13½ guntas of the land in Sy.No.78/1 and remaining 26½ guntas in Sy.No.78/1 fell into the share of 6 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 the plaintiff. The property of 26½ guntas is the subject matter of the suit. 4.7. It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendants had purchased 24 guntas in Sy.No.78/1 measuring 135 feet x 40 yards under the sale deed dated 14.06.1950. Defendants are attempting to claim large extent of land though an extent of 24 guntas alone was purchased under the sale deed dated 14.06.1950. Therefore, suit is filed claiming relief of declaration and injunction. 5. Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants appeared before the Trial Court and denied the plaint averments in toto. 6. They contend that defendants having purchased the property to the extent of 135 feet x 40 yards which would work out to about 5,400 yards equivalent to about 1.01 acres of the land were in enjoyment of the same. 7 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 7. They also contend that plaintiff having sold his entire property, wants to claim the possession over the property belonging to the defendants as there is a discrepancy in the measurement in the sale deeds of plaintiff and the defendants. 8. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, Trial Court raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and decreed the suit of the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.15 to 17 as under: 15. THE grievance of plaintiff and to appreciate the contentions, the plaintiff claims ownership over aforesaid extent of land. The defendants wrongfully entered the name of Rangahanumaiah to extent of 1 acre 7 guntas. The RTCs at Ex.P3 to Ex.P18, mutation register at Ex.P19 are placed on record. The name of Rangahanumaiah to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas in Sy.No.78/1 and 27 guntas in Sy.No.78/2 continues. But Ex.P3 is silent about the subdivision number. The written statement contentions reveal that, Rangahanumaiah acquired property in Sy.No.78 but silent about subdivision number. No separate written statement schedule is shown by the defendants. The defendants contended their rights only on the basis of unsuccessful revenue proceedings initiated and orders passed against the plaintiff. It is well settled that, the revenue courts are precluded from deciding civil rights. Further, the 8 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 revenue entries do not prove the title. But in the case on hand, the title documents claimed by both parties are on record. The title documents absolutely not disputed by each other. The index of land at Ex.P47 and mutation as per Ex.P48 show that, Rangahanumaiah acquired 24 guntas of land. Ex.P49 and Ex.P50 also further strengthen the same. Ex.P47 also show that, the father of the plaintiff acquired 3.30 guntas in Sy.No.78. All these revenue records/entries such as mutation based on sale deeds, index of land, RTC for various years not challenged by the defendants. 16. NOW to appreciate the evidence of DW1, she admits the suit property is situated adjacent to them. Her evidence is of total ignorance of plaintiffs father acquired the land and also by Rangahanumaiah (page No.8, para No.3). The plaintiffs specifically denied the entries in Ex.P19 to an extent of 1.7 guntas beyond the land acquired under Ex.P23. She pleaded ignorance about more extent as shown and mentioned in RTCs. The defendants also placed Ex.D1 to prove the land acquired but it is only 135 x 40 yards. Ex.D2 to Ex.D5 are of no consideration as the same is filed by brother of plaintiff Seetharamaiah, to which the plaintiff is not a party. Ex.D7 filed by Lakkamma in respect of 16 guntas in Sy.No.78/1, which is not the subject matter of suit. Though defendants contended about the Judgment and decree in RA No.11/2011 but the same relates to the Judgment and decree in OS No.43/2005 measuring 30 guntas of land filed by Seetharamaiah, which is again not the subject matter of the suit. Under these circumstances, the evidence placed on both oral and documentary clearly establishes that, the plaintiff is the have title over the properties beyond the scope of Ex.P23, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the owner in respect of the suit property in question. 17. ISSUE NO.2:- All that the plaintiff claims the alleged interference of the defendants being the 9 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 adjacent owners into the suit property in question. The grievance of the plaintiff that, beyond the extent of land acquired under Ex.P23 by Rangahanumaiah, their names were entered to an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas in RTC and revenue documents. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, based on those entries the defendants allegedly interfered into the suit property in question. As discussed above the index of land at Ex.P47, M.R at Ex.P48 show that Rangahanumaiah acquired only to an extent of 24 guntas. Ex.P49 and Ex.P50 also confirms the same. On the other hand the father of the plaintiff acquired 3 acre 30 guntas of land which strengthened by Ex.P47. The title deeds are not in dispute. Ex.D1 is the sale deed under which Rangahanumaiah acquired 135 x 40 yards and the same is not in dispute. The defendants being the adjacent owners is established by the admission in cross examination and also through Ex.P40. It appears that, the revenue proceedings are initiated, RTCs are mutated and further more, the defendants dispute the right claimed by the plaintiff as per written statement contended. All these above, supports the contention of the plaintiff regarding the alleged interference into his possession and enjoyment over suit property in question. Therefore, the plaintiff proved issue No.2 and hence answered in affirmative. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.3/2018. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties 10 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 and dismissed the appeal of the defendants inter alia holding in paragraphs No.20 & 21 are as under: 20. In the written statement itself, the defendants taken the contention that, Plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property and he is also not in possession and enjoyment of the same. Regarding this aspect, on perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 and also defence in the written statement at para No.4 at page No.4, in a clear cut wording has taken the defence that the Plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property by creating fictious cause of action filed a false suit. In the same para, in the same page, he has also taken another contention that, due to un-successful attempt before the Assistant Commissioner, the Plaintiff on behalf of his brother gave trouble to the defendant. in one or another way to suit their convenience for the purpose of filing the false and frivolous suit. Apart from that, in para No.3 also, the defendants have taken the contention that, Plaintiff and his family members are never cultivating the suit schedule property at any point of time. This tenure of defence in the written statement itself goes to show that the defendants have denied the title, interest and possession of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. This defence itself is sufficient to believe the case of the Plaintiff before the trial court regarding the interference. When the title of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property itself denied by the defendants, then, definitely, it creates apprehension in the mind of the 11 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 Plaintiff regarding the interference by the defendants. Much earlier to the present suit, the brother of the Plaintiff has already approached the revenue Court against the defendants herein. When there is a series of civil litigation between the Plaintiff and the defendants, under such circumstances, being the adjacent owner of the suit schedule property, the defendants are intending to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Regarding the interference, mere apprehension itself is sufficient. If the interference is completed, then, it amounts to encroachment of the property or unlawful possession of the property. But, before the encroachment, before the defendant taken possession of the suit schedule property, the Plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial court for declaration as well as permanent prohibitory injunction. Actual interference does not arise while granting the prohibitory order against the defendants. By virtue of the registered sale deeds as well as revenue entries, the Plaintiff has clearly proved his ownership over the suit schedule property. No doubt, revenue entries are in no way create title over the property, but, registered sale deeds stand in the name of Narasimhaiah, who is none other than the father of the Plaintiff itself passes the title to the Plaintiff herein. Even the entries in the revenue records also having its own presumptive value. 21. As per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the entries in the revenue records are 12 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 always drawn presumption in favour of the Plaintiff. If those entries are not in accordance with law, then, the defendants ought to have rebut those presumption. But, in the present case, no rebuttal evidence from the defendants side. All the documents produced by the defendants pertaining to the property in Sy. No.78 measuring 135 X 40 feet. Under such circumstances, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Plaintiff has clearly proved his title over the suit schedule property. When such being the case, the title follows the possession. When apprehension in the mind of the Plaintiff, regarding the interferences, under such circumstances, he is also entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction. Moreover, defendants never claimed their right over the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, the case of the Plaintiff proved in accordance with law before the trial court. The trial court has appreciated all the documents and oral evidence in its perspective manner while come into the correct conclusion. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is in no way arbitrary. Hence, interference by the Appellate Court does not arise. Hence, I answer the above points accordingly. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants have filed the second appeal on the following grounds : 13 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022  That the Impugned Judgments are illegal and the facts and circumstances of the case besides being arbitrary one.  That the appellant is in possession of the land bearing Sy No: 78/1 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas since from the date of purchase and proved the same by producing the sale deed vide ExD1, order of the A.C, Bangalore vide ExD2 and RTC vide D10 respectively. So, the very claim of the respondent in respect of the Land bearing Sy.No:78/1 to an extent of 26.1/2 seeking Declaration is hit by the section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the relief of Declaration without possession is not maintainable.  That its not in dispute that the father in law of the appellant No:1 by name Ranga Hanumaiah purchased the land bearing Sy No: 78/1 measuring 135x40 yards under registered sale deed dated 14.06.1950. So if the yards are converted into guntas it comes to 1 acre 7 guntas. And even as per ExD5, the brother of the respondent by name Seetharamaiah admitted before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A 31/2 2006-2007 that the RangaHanumaiaha is owner to an extent of 1A1G in SyNo:78/1 and even Pwl pleads ignorance in his cross examination in respect of appellants ownership and possession to an extent of 1 acre 7guntas So courts below without considering the same has allowed the suit which is wrong. 14 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022  That there is no pleading in the plaint that the respondent Father by name Narsimhaiah had been granted the land bearing is Sy No:78 measuring 3 acre 30 guntas situated at Heggadadevanapura village, Dasanapura hobli Bangalore dated 08.07. 1963, in case number 52/59-60, by the Deputy Commissioner. This being the thing, the courts below erred in relying Exp2 ie grant order and holding that the respondents are owner to an extent of 3A 30 G.  That the Pw1 categorically stated in cross examination that he does not know that the father in law of the appellant No: 1 by name Ranga Hanumaiah has purchased one acre 7 guntas in the land bearing SY No: 78/1 situated at the Heggadadevanapura village, Dasanapura hobli, Bangalore and in possession of the same.  That the respondent herein was aware of the very purchase of the Land bearing Sy.No:78 measuring 135x40 yards by the RangaHanumaiaha in the year 1950. So the respondent herein ought to challenge the sale deed immediately as it was casting cloud to their title. So the courts below ought not to have allowed the suit filed by the respondent after lapse of 65 years which, is barred by the law of limitation.  That pw1 categorically admitted in cross examination that the father in law of the land by name Ranga hanumaiah 15 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 has not interfered with his peaceful possession of the suit land. So question of granting injunction does not arise.  That the trial court held that the Ranga hanumaiah the absolute owner to an extent of 135x 40 yards of the land bearing sy No: 78/1 situated at Heggadadevanapura village. Having held sought so erred in allowing the suit.  That the appellant herein have produced the order passed by the revenue court as per EX D2 to D7 and revenue documents such as mutation and RTC at Ex D8- D16 which establishes that the appellants are in possession of lacre 7 guntas The courts below without appreciating the same and allowed the suit which is wrong.  That the appellants are in possession of 1 acre 7 guntas of land i.e. 135x 40 yards as per the registered sale deed dated 14.06.1950. The courts below without properly calculating the yards wrongly, came to the conclusion that the appellant s are in possession of 24 guntas of land which is wrong.  The trial court has not clearly ascertained the extent of the suit schedule property though the revenue authorities have given clear findings in the revenue proceedings that the Appellants are in actual possession of 1 acre 7 guntas which was measured in yards as 135 X 40 yards and has mechanically passed the decree which is wrong. 16 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022  There are inconsistencies between the pleadings and proof in the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff in as much at one stage the Plaintiff in the plaint pleaded that his father has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1949-50 and at another stage ie in the evidence, he has produced ExP2, the order in Case No.52/1959-60 passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner under the occupancy rights. In this regard, there is no whisper in the pleadings. In the absence of the pleadings, the Ex.P.2 cannot be considered. The trial court failed to appreciate the above inconsistencies and pleadings and the evidence on record in its proper pursuance rendering the decree vitiated.  That the reasoning of the courts below that the appellants have denied the title, interest and possession of the respondent over the schedule suit property, shows that the appellants are interfering with the possession is wrong. 12. In the appeal, the following substantial questions of law has been raised : 1. When the respondent has failed to prove his case properly whether, the courts below were justified in allowing the suit? 17 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 2. In the absence of any pleading by the respondent with respect to grant made by special Dy commissioner Bangalore as per Exp2 whether the courts below were justified in relying the said document and decreeing the suit? 3. Whether, the courts below were justified in allowing the suit when the pleadings and documents are contrary to each other 4. Whether, the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit of the respondent when the very claim of the plaintiff is hit by the section 34 of the specific R.A as the plaintiff has sought only the relief of declaration without the consequential relief of possession? 13. Sri. Dorai Babu, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that there is a serious dispute as to the extent of the property of the plaintiff as well as extent of the property of the defendants as plaintiff has admittedly sold some portion of the land and portion of the land has been given at the share to his brother. As such decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court 18 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 without calling for a survey report has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 14. He also invites the attention of this Court that the sale deed which is marked as Ex.D1 (which is Ex.P23) would make it clear that the property that has been conveyed in the said sale deed is to the extent of 135 x 40 yards which would workout to 5400 yards. 5400 yards if converted into acres, it would be 1 acre 01 gunta of land. 15. Thus, the revenue entries mutated in the name of defendants consistency even as per Ex.P1 and P7 would make it clear that the defendant were enjoying the property to the extent of 1 acre 07 guntas. 16. In Ex.P7, it has been shown that the plaintiff has got only 0-03 guntas of land whereas the defendants have got 1 acre 07 guntas in the name of Lakkamma being the wife of Ranga Hunumaiah who was the purchaser in Ex.D1. 19 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 17. He also invited the attention of the Court that in the teeth of such revenue records filed by the plaintiff himself, the Trial Court ought not to have ventured into hold an enquiry with regard to the validity of the title deed as to what property that has been conveyed Ex.D1 and should not have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff resulting in miscarriage of justice which has been mechanically upheld by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 18. Per contra, Sri. A. Sampath, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment. 19. He would further contend that even though the recitals in Ex.D1 may state that the extent of property that is conveyed is to the extent of 135 x 40 yards, what was remaining in the total land in Sy.No.78 after the grants were made and after several purchases made by the plaintiffs is only to the extent of 0-23 guntas as could be 20 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 seen from Ex.P 47 which is the Index of Lands followed by Ex.P48 as he is rightly observed and considered by both the Courts and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 20. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously including the material documents in the lower court records. 21. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that plaintiff is also claiming the right, title and interest by virtue of the sale deeds of his father so also the defendants. 22. The revenue entries were mutated as per their respective sale deeds. Father of the plaintiff acquired the property under two different sale deeds. After the demise of the father of the plaintiff who held about 3 acres 30 guntas of the land, it is the plaintiff who enjoyed the property. He has settled 13 1/2 guntas of the property in 78/1 to his elder brother. 21 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 23. He has also sold 1 acre 11 guntas of the property in favour of the third party. Thus, what remains with the plaintiff is to the land to the extent of 26 1/2 guntas in Sy.No.78/1. 24. Admittedly, after the sale of the property in favour third party to the extent of 1 acre 11 guntas and settling 13 1/2 guntas of the property in favour of his elder brother, plaintiff got two bits of land in Sy.No.78/1 of which one bit of the land on the Western side, property of the defendants lies. 25. Therefore, there was a dispute with regard to the extent of the land when defendants started claiming the suit property. 26. At that juncture, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that he is the owner of 26 1/2 guntas of the land with a specific boundary. As could be seen from the boundaries to the suit property, on the 22 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 Western side, the plaintiff has shown the property of the defendant. 27. Pertinently, the sale deed market at Ex.D1 dated 14.06.1950 conveys the land to the extent of 135 * 40 yards. 28. The land that was conveyed by the vendor of the defendant is not in dispute but only the extent is in dispute in view of the fact that what remain in Sy.No.78 originally a government land to be conveyed to the defendant through Ex.D1 was the pertinent question that fell for consideration before the Trial Court. 29. Since both the parties were claiming under the title and at an undisputed point of time, the land was a government land which was granted to several people and vendors of plaintiff and defendant were such grantees, the Trial Court did carry out an exercise in comparing the title documents visa vis the Index of lands at an undisputed point of time, marked at Ex.P47. 23 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 30. As per the Index of lands, the land that was granted after granting to the others in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff is only to the extent of 0-24 guntas. 31. In other words, the vendor of the defendant got title to the property the suit property only to the extent of 0-24 gutnas though in the sale deed it has been mentioned as 135 * 40 yards. 32. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that a person can convey by way of a sale to another person only to the extent of the title which is owned by him. The same is discussed in detail in paragraph No.17 of the judgment of the Trial Court as referred to supra. Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the defendant to question the validity of the index of land and so also the mutation entry at Ex.P48. 33. Admittedly, no such proceedings took place between the vendors of plaintiff and vendors of the defendants. Defendant was satisfied with sale deed entry 24 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 and the revenue entries mentioning that he has got 1.07 acres as per Exs.P3 and P7. Sale deed is the only document on which the revenue entries were mutated. 34. However revenue proceedings took place when brother of the plaintiff by name Seetharamaiah had approached the Court of the Assistant Commissioner for correction of revenue entries which came to be dismissed. 35. In this regard, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court took into consideration the grounds urged on behalf of the defendant and has specifically recorded the finding that under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Act, that no doubt the revenue entries would be a presumption but it is not final. 36. In every case where the revenue entries are entered in the name of the parties would not confer the title. Such a situation is permissible when both the parties do not have any title deeds to establish their possession over their suit property. But such a general rule needs a 25 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 departure in case where the parties are litigating on the basis of the title deeds. 37. In the case on hand, as the plaintiffs are also relying on the sale deed executed in the year 1940 in favour of their father Narasimhaiah and defendant is also claim the title on the basis of the sale deed vide Ex.D1 which is executed in the year 1950, the general rule that the revenue entries would prevail over the title of the parties cannot be pressed into service. 38. As admittedly, the land that is conveyed under Ex.D1 is more than what his vendor possessed as could be seen from the Registrar of Index of land, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of 26 1/2 guntas is thus, in the considered opinion of this Court does not require any further interference. 39. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit whatsoever in the substantial 26 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34406 RSA No. 253 of 2022 questions of law raised in the appeal for further consideration. 39. Accordingly following Order: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV from paragraph Nos.1 to 8, SNC from paragraph Nos.9 to end. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44