- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SMT. MANJAMMA D/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA W/O SIDDAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MALLENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 128. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA W/O YOGANAND AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GATTALAHALLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 129. 4. SMT. PUSHPA D/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHA S/O LATE ANJINI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE ANJINI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. LAKSHMI D/O ALTE ANJINI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF ANNENAHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 128. 4. SRI. SIDDARAJU S/O LATE BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 5. SRI. SHIVANANDA S/O LATE BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 6. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 7. SRI. GANGARAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 8. SRI. HARISH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 9. SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 10. SRI. OBALI S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF ANNENAHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.467/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC- 5 TUMKUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants seeking to declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owner in possession - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 of the suit schedule property and restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 - Hanumantharayappa and his sister namely Chikkamma had jointly purchased land measuring 3 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.5 situated at Annenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk (for brevity, 'the suit schedule property') vide registered Sale Deed dated 26.12.1968 from one Lakshminarasappa and Channappa and ever since, the were in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Hanumantharayappa had married Sanjeevamma, the only daughter of his sister - Chikkamma. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 were their children. After the death of Chikkamma and Sanjeevamma, plaintiffs were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. However, the defendants, without having any right, title, interest or possession, interfered with the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 plaintiffs' possession over the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiffs' filed the suit. 4. On service of summons, though the defendants appeared, they failed to file the written statement and contest the matter. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining, the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit. 6. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri M.B.Chandrachook, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 10/defendants and perused the materials on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have grossly erred while dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property due to non- placing of the original Sale Deed 23.12.1968, though they produced the certified copy of the same. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RVE VENKATACHALA GOUNDAR Vs. ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE - AIR 2003 SC 4548, he submitted that, an objection to the admissibility of document should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 though appeared, have failed to file their written statement despite granting sufficient opportunity and have also failed to contest the matter. In such circumstance, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in dismissing the suit by not considering Ex.P2 - certified - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 copy of the Sale Deed. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the respondents have very good case on merits, however, they remained absent due to the reason beyond their control. Further, the suit schedule property is a Noukari Inam Land, as such, the plaintiffs were neither possessors nor cultivators of the same, whereas defendant No.4 was appointed for Thalavarike work in the year 1942 and after the enactment of Inams Abolition Act, the suit schedule property was allotted in favour of defendant No.4. In such circumstance, the vendor of plaintiff No.1 - Hanumantharayappa and Chikkamma has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property to sell the same in favour their favour. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal or in the alternative, to remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration by extending opportunity to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 the defendants to put forth their case by placing relevant documents. 10. Having given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts, the only substantial question of law that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in dismissing the suit by holding that the plaintiffs were not able to prove their title as they produced only the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 23.12.1968 - Ex.P2? 11. As could be gathered from records, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property by primarily relying on Ex.P2 - certified copy of the Sale Deed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 dated 23.12.1968. The production of the said Sale Deed was not opposed by the defendants and the Trial Court also accepted the same. However, while dismissing the suit the Trial Court basically opined that non-production of the original Sale Deed creates a cloud on the plaintiffs' title over the suit schedule property. 12. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 though appeared before the Trial Court, have failed to file their written statement and not contested the matter. 13. The contention of the defendants before this Court is that the vendor of plaintiff No.1 - Hanumantharayappa and his sister has no valid title to convey the suit schedule property in their favour. He also contended that if an opportunity is extended to the defendants they will be able to demonstrate the said aspect by placing relevant documents. Though defendants did not point out any circumstance which prevented them from instructing their counsel to contest the suit, yet an opportunity deserves to be granted to the defendants to contest the suit on merits. In such circumstance, the plaintiffs would also get an - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 opportunity to establish their case by producing the original documents or by leading evidence to that effect. Hence, I answer the substantial question of law in the 'negative'. 14. However, I cannot ignore the time lost by the plaintiffs in pursuing the litigation and the expenses incurred. Thus, to balance equities, an attempt is made to recompense the plaintiffs for the difficulty faced, by awarding suitable costs. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.467/2012, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.50/2016 vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2019 are set aside. iii. The suit is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. iv. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 06.01.2026 without expecting any further notice from the Trial Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49073 RSA No. 683 of 2019 v. It is made clear that the defendants shall pay costs and file their written statement on the said day. vi. If the Trial Court considers that any fresh issue arises, it may frame issues and thereafter record the evidence of the parties. vii. The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit as early as possible and in accordance with the Karnataka (Case Flow management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27