- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 882 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VARAMAHALAKSHMI @ SUVARNA W/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SRI. R. NIRANJAN S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. SRI. R. SATHISH S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SMT. PRAMILA @ BHUVANESHWARI D/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT CHAMPAKANAGARA EXTENSION, SAKALESHPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 127. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. A.R. SURYANARAYANA S/O LATE PATEL V. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT ACHANGI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 127. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 2. SRI A.R. MANJUNATH S/O LATE PATEL V. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT ACHANGI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA ALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 127. 3. SMT. A.R. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE H.S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.130 LAKSHMINARASIMHA, 2ND CROSS MYSORE - 570 019. 4. SMT. A.R. NAGARATHNA W/O A.K. NAGARAJ AGED BOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.27-14/2, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CANARA BANK COLONY, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 061. 5. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O B.S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.85/3, 7TH CROSS, VISHWANATHESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD R.M.V 2ND CROSS, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 094. 6. SMT. A.R. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O B.S. RAJASHEKHARA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, KEMPANNA LAYOUT, GOWDANA PALYA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHU HULIKAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.7/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHAPURA, HASSAN. ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.131/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Kashinath J. D., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Raghu Hulikal, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1. 2. Legal representatives of the original defendant are the appellants in this second appeal challenging the reversing of the judgment in RA No.7/2020 by the First Appellate Court, in O.S.No.131/2013. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. A suit for declaration, possession and injunction was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.131/2013 contending that plaintiffs are the children of Patel V. Rajappa son of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 late Patel Venkatasubbaiah. Patel Venkatasubbaiah said to have died on 31.05.1988 leaving behind the plaintiffs and Seethalakshmi. Seethalakshmi also died. Therefore, plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property inasmuch as their father had purchased the suit property through registered sale deed dated 07.01.1977 and they were in possession of the property. 3.2. It is further contended that on 10.08.2013, surveyor of Sakaleshpur issued a notice with regard to survey of land in Sy.No.18 of Achangi village and measured the land on 12.08.2013 as is requested by the defendant. 3.3. At that juncture, plaintiffs noticed that the revenue entry in respect of the suit property was clandestinely entered in the name of the defendant and therefore, after enquiry, they filed the suit against the defendant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 4. Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants entered appearance and contended that he is the owner of the land by virtue of the sale deed 27.03.2007 in respect of the land with following boundaries: :- :- ರವರ . :- . . :- ರವರ :- 5. It is pertinent to note that there is no mention as to the survey number of the land and other details in the schedule to the sale deed of the defendant. 6. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues, noted that plaintiffs have failed to prove the case and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 7. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.07/2020. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs noting that plaintiffs’ title flew from the sale deed dated 04.01.1977 executed by Manjashetty in favour of father of the plaintiffs namely Patel V. Rajappa. 9. It is also noted that boundaries mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiffs did tally with the remaining land held by the plaintiffs and in the sale deed of defendant, there is no survey number or other particulars except the boundaries. 10. None of the boundaries mentioned in the defendants sale deed on any one side of the plaintiffs land tallied and therefore, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noted that the property purchased by Patel V. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 Rajappa is the suit property and plaintiffs being the only legal representatives of Patel V. Rajappa are the owners of the suit property and decreed the suit as prayed for. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of original defendant have filed the present appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: GROUNDS “Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate court in RA No.7/2020 is illegal since appellate court has not considered the evidence on record and failed to appreciate various legal questions. The appellate court based on the non-pleaded averments of the plaint decreed the suit by reversing the judgment of the trail court. Hence Judgment of the appellate court is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is contrary to evidence available on record and both oral and documentary evidence has not been properly appreciated while passing reversing the judgement of the trail court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 Hence impugned judgment of the appellate court is bad in law and same is liable to be set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the appellate court contrary to the pleadings and also contrary to both oral and documentary evidence available on record. Which are the averments not pleaded and asserted by the plaintiff regarding possession and acquiring the title by their father which have been relied by the appellate court, which is impermissible in law. Hence impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside. The issues framed by the trail court sufficiently with sound reasoning in its findings but the appellate court while reversing the same failed answer to all the issues and not even considered other legal questions attached to the trail of suit. In the instant case on hand both the parties are claiming the ownership title based on the registered document but the plaintiff case is completely barred by law of limitation since plaintiffs father was not in possession after his purchase of property and revenue documents are not showing the transaction infavour of the plaintiffs father. On the contrary all the revenue documents were in the name of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 defendant's vendor Lakshmamma and Krishnashetty till the date of purchase of property by the defendant and after purchase of the property by the defendant all the revenue documents mutated in the name of the defendant and he is in possession by paying tax. These aspects of the matter are clearly reveals that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the eye of law. Since the plaintiffs are not possession and in spite of this, suit was filed seeking only declaration and injunction, suit in the absence of prayer for possession is not maintainable in eye of law. This aspect has not been considered by the appellate court. Hence impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The order of the First Appellate Court is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and same is nullity in the eye of law. The reliance made by the appellate court pick and chose matter is valuing the evidence on record. The defence set by the defendant was not proved on likely hood at least. The evidence of Plaintiffs is clearly indicates that they are not in possession of the property at the time of filling the suit and thereby the decree passed by the trail court is not suffers from any error. In spite of this the 1 appellate court passed the impugned order which illegal and liable to be set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 It is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is defective since relief for possession is not sought but they have pleaded that they are in possession but none of the documents are oral evidence supports said assertion. In view of this, impugned judgment is laible to be set aside. It is submitted that the PW1 in his oral evidence stated that their father purchased the property in the year 1977 and after that they have applied for Khatha bit same was not ordered by the Tahasilar. This aspect off the matter clearly goes to show that the kahtha was not effected in the year 1977 pursuant to sale deed and after lapse of more than 30 years suit was filed seeking relief of declaration which us barred by law of limitation. But this legal aspect of the matter has been ignored by the appellate court. Findings recorded by the Appellate court that the Manjappashetty was exclusive owner of the property and he has sold and the Krushna Shetty has not ownership over the suit property was not pleaded in the plaint but the appellate court based one MR drawn the inference and decreed the suit. In view of this, findings recorded by the appellate court holding that the Manjappa shetty was the exclusive owner of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 the property is completely illegal and same is in the absence of absence of pleading and same is speculative approach of the appellate court. Hence impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. That the appellate court relied on the Ex-P10 held that the Krishan Shetty sold his share in RS No.118/2 in favour of the Manjappa Shetty. The said findings are based on the MR document but said sale deed and to that effect it was not pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint or in the evidence. But the appellate goes beyond the scope of the trail court record and given findings for reversing the judgment of the trail court. In the said process the appellate court committed serious error since the reliance made to Mutation register decide the title of the Manjappa shetty is illegal, hence judgment of the appellate court is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the entire pleading of the plaintiffs, evidence on record clearly shows that the possession of the suit property is not with plaintiffs as the date of suit and pursuant to sale deed plaintiffs' father was put in possession of the property. Despite trail court held in favour of the plaintiffs by reversing the trail court judgment. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 Hence the judgment of the appellate court is illegal and bad in law. Conclusion reached by the reached by the appellate court that the Krishna Shetty sold his share in the RS No.118/2 in favour of the Manjappa Shetty is completely illegal since the said inference drawn on the basis of the revenue documents. Further that the Manjappa Shetty lost his right is completely incorrect since the appellate court has not decided that the Manjappa Shetty had exclusive right over the property to sell it in favour of the plaintiffs father When such exclusive right was asserted by the plaintiffs in the plaint averments and these issues were not properly answered. Hence approach of the appellate court beyond the material produced during the course of the trail. Hence judgment of the appellate court is liable to be set aside. The Issue No.1 framed by the trail court has not been proved by the Plaintiffs by providing impeccable documentary evidence and there is no documentary evidence placed either before the trail court or before the Appellate court to show that the plaintiffs father and after his death plaintiffs are in possession of the property by paying tax. The documents produced by the plaintiffs' dose not establish the possession of the property by the plaintiffs' father - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 and plaintiffs. On the contrary the defendant possessions clearly establish that the vendor to defendant were in possession and after that defendant is on possession which clearly reveals from the all the revenue and registered documents. In spite of this, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trail court. As long as the plaintiffs are not in possession suit for declaration and injunction in the absence of recovery of possession is not maintainable but the appellate court has not considered the same hence judgment of the appellate court is illegal and unjust in the eye of law. Judgment of the Appellate court is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and same is bad in the eye of law. In a suit for declaration and possession the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his legally valid title by producing the impeccable evidence and in the present case the trail court correctly held that the plaintiffs are not proved their title supported by possession but the appellate court has not taken the said legal position as seriously and reversed the findings of the trail court. Hence judgment of the Appellate court is liable to be set aside. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW i. Whether the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable in the absence of seeking relief of possession? ii. Whether the judgment and decree passed in RA No.7/2020 is justified where suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation? iii. Whether judgment and decree passed by the Appellate court in RA No.7/2020 is correct in considering both oral and documentary evidence and the plaintiff has proved the possession and title over the suit schedule property on the basis of the both oral and documentary evidence? IV. Whether the judgment and decree of the Appellate court is right in holding that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record? v. Both oral and documentary evidence available on record of the both trail court and Appellate court in RA No.7/2020 supports the case of plaintiffs regarding possession of the suit property? - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 vi. Whether approach of the Appellate court in accepting the EX-P10 as documentary evidence to prove that the Krishna Shetty has sold his share in the RS No.118/2 based on the mutation register and in the absence of registered deed? vii. Whether the judgment of the Appellate court has extended opportunity to Defendants to make their defence in respect of new version of interpretation of EX-P10 document? 12. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that sale deed of 1977 executed by Manjashetty in favour of Patel V. Rajappa did not convey any property for which the defendant is claiming by sale deed dated 27.03.2007 and by virtue of the sale deed dated 04.01.1977, plaintiffs have tried to interfere with the suit property of the defendant which is evident from the records and which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs which has been ignored by the learned Judge in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 the First Appellate Court and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments. 14. He would further contend that the sale deed dated 04.01.1977 executed by Manjashetty in favour of father of the plaintiff namely Patel V. Rajappa contains the survey number and it is also mentioned that adjacent land did belong to the plaintiffs’ family. Therefore, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 04.01.1977 tallies with the realities existing on the land, which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 15. A memo with the copy of the sale deed executed by Manjashetty in favour of the plaintiffs and sale deed executed by Lakshmamma and another in favour of original defendant – Rangaswamy are placed on record by learned counsel for the respondents. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 16. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the sale deed executed by Manjashetty on 04.01.1977, the boundaries would tally with the remaining land of the plaintiff on Western and Northern side. 18. Whereas, in the sale deed executed by Lakshmamma and another in favour of original defendant – Rangaswamy, there is no mention as to what is the land and extent that has been conveyed in the schedule. In which survey number, the vendors of the defendants conveyed the property is also not forthcoming in the contents of the sale deed. 19. No doubt, a mention is made in the contents of the sale deed stating that property involved in the sale deed is having an MR No.1/2006-07 and katha is also standing in the name of Lakshmamma and Krishnashetty. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 20. Admittedly, they were aged about 70 to 80 years at the time of sale deed which is dated 27.03.2007. 21. There is no title to the property mentioned in the sale deed nor there is any further details forthcoming in the written statement of the defendant as to how Rangaswamy’s vendors got the suit property. 22. Mere revenue entry in MR No.1/2006-07 would not be sufficient to establish that the vendors of Rangaswamy had the title over the suit property especially in the absence of not mentioning the survey number of the land which is sought to be conveyed. 23. No doubt, the sale deed contains the boundaries as referred to supra. Admittedly, Achangi village has got vast extent of land and in different survey numbers; what prevented the defendant to get the sale deed rectified, if for some reasons, the land that has been conveyed to them and survey number thereof is left out in the sale deed dated 27.03.2007 till today. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32976 RSA No. 882 of 2022 24. In the absence of the same, only on the basis of the boundaries which would not tally with any one of the boundaries of the plaintiffs, decreeing of the suit by the First Appellate Court and reversing the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is thus just and proper. 25. Accordingly, none of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum would merit for further consideration. 26. Hence, following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 CT: BHK