- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAROJA (C S SAROJA) D/O SHRI CHETTIMADA GOWRAMMA AND SRI SUBRAYA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SMT SHOBHA (K L SHOBHA ) D/O SMT. CHETTIMADA GOWRAMMA AND SRI SUBRAYA W/O SRI LOHITHASHWA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS BOTH APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT ATTUR VILLAGE, SOMAVARAPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. LAXMANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURESH BABU B.N, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 AND: SMT. JALAJA W/O SUKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT SHRIRANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 251 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K FOR, ADVOCATE C/R) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.36/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.4/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MADIKERI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants claiming that she is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The Government has granted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 28.12.1976 through an Order No.HRP/LND 76-77 as per Ex.P4, since her property was submerged in Harangi Reservoir Project. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that ever since from the grant, all the revenue records were mutated in her name and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants without having any right, title or interest, much less possession over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the same. As such, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 4. After serving of suit summons, the defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement by denying the plaint averments and by contending that the defendants' mother namely Chettimada Gowramma had been granted land bearing Sy.No.43/1P2 measuring 2 acres (previously Sy.No.43/1) situated at Attur Village and the property in Sy.No.43/2 measuring 2 acres situated in the same village. After her death, on 01.09.2004, the defendants, being her legal heirs, by virtue of Wills executed by her on 16.09.1995 and 20.10.2001 in their favour, they were in possession of total extent of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.43/1P2 and Sy.No.43/2 situated in one compact block separately from the suit schedule property. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff declaring her as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and restraining the defendants from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. 6. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the documents and evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the defendants are before this Court. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants is that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred while passing the impugned judgments by allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff without appreciating the documents on record in proper perspective. He contended that the mother of defendants one Chettimada Gowramma had been granted 4 acres of land in Sy.No.43/1P2 and Sy.No.43/2 i.e., 2 acres each. Both the lands situated in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 one compact block separately without sharing boundary with the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. 8. By virtue of the Wills executed by their mother Chettimada Gowramma, after her demise, the defendants had acquired those 4 acres of land and were in possession and enjoyment of the same. To prove their possession and ownership, the defendants produced the grant certificate issued in favour of Chettimada Gowramma as per Ex.D4 along with the sketch and also photographs as per Exs.D11 to D43. He also contended that though the plaintiff has totally failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property and also the alleged interference by the defendants, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in decreeing the suit in her favour. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent contended that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after meticulously examining the entire - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 evidence on record and the documents, have passed a reasoned judgment by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. According to him, the suit schedule property i.e., land measuring an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.43 was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1976 i.e., on 28.12.1976 as per Ex.P4. It is her case that Sy.No.43 was totally measuring an extent of 4 acres and later Sy.No.43 was renumbered as Sy.Nos.43/1P1 and 43/2. Out of the total extent of 4 acres, the plaintiff was granted 2 acres of land in the year 1976 in Sy.No.43/1P1 and later in the year 1985, the Government has granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.43/2 to the defendants, however, it has mistakenly also granted 2 acres in Sy.No.43/1P2 to the defendants, which was not in existence, since the total extent of land available in Sy.No.43 was only 4 acres. As such, the grant made in favour of the defendants in Sy.No.43/1P2 is a gross mistake committed by the Government. However, the defendants made an attempt to interfere with the suit schedule property by virtue of wrong grant made to them - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 in Sy.No.43/1P2 i.e., 2 acres, which was not in existence. These aspects of the matter have been clearly dealt with by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by considering the evidence and documents on record. Moreover, Ex.P6-the survey sketch clearly depicts that there is no excess land than 4 acres in Sy.No.43 and the same was later divided into two parts i.e., 43/1P1 and 43/2. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the entire materials on record. 11. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.43/1P1 on 28.12.1976. To prove the said aspect, the plaintiff produced Ex.P4-the grant order, Ex.P5-the Saguvali Chit and Ex.P6-the sketch. Apart from these - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 documents, the plaintiff has also placed on record the RTC's as per Exs.P9 to P11 and the holding certificate as per Ex.P12 and the boundary certificate as per Ex.P13. 12. On careful examination of these documents, the same depicts that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants was based on the Wills executed by their mother who had been granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.43/1P2 and 2 acres in Sy.No.43/2 in the year 1985. According to the defendants, the said properties were adjacent to the suit schedule property. However, on careful perusal of Ex.P6 - sketch, it reveals that originally the suit schedule property and defendants' property totally measuring 4 acres comprised in Sy.No.43. After grant made in favour of the plaintiff, Sy.No.43 was renumbered as Sy.Nos.43/1P1 and 43/2. Accordingly, the plaintiff was put in possession of land in Sy.No.43/1P1 measuring 2 acres. The remaining extent of land i.e., 2 acres was granted subsequently to the mother of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 defendants in the year 1985 in Sy.No.43/2. However, the Government has mistakenly also granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.43/1P2, though there was no such survey number and though there was no land available in Sy.No.43. This aspect of the matter is clearly forthcoming from perusal of the survey sketch-Ex.P6. Nonetheless, to substantiate that 4 acres of land had been granted in favour of the mother of defendants in two survey numbers i.e., Sy.No.43/2 and Sy.No.43/1P2, they have not placed the original grant order. 13. On the other hand, the plaintiff has placed the RTCs and the holding certificate and boundary certificate as per Exs.P9 to P13 which clearly reveal that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants even in their evidence also not disputed the grant of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.43/1P1 in favour of the plaintiff and their grant in Sy.No.43/2 measuring 2 acres. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have rightly examined the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 evidence on record in respect of the available land in Sy.No.43 i.e., 4 acres, which was re-numbered as Sy.Nos.43/1P1 and 43/2 and also in respect of possession of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has stated in her evidence that the land bearing Sy.No.43/2 which was granted to the defendants was adjacent to the land of the plaintiff and the defendants made attempts to interfere with the suit schedule property on the guise of the alleged grant of 2 acres of land made in favour of their mother in Sy.No.43/1P2, although there was no such survey number and no land left out in Sy.No.43. As such, the Trial Court has rightly granted the relief of injunction. 14. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff's grant is of the year 1976 i.e., much prior to the grant made in favour of the mother of the defendants i.e., in the year 1985. Hence, viewed from any angle, in my considered view, interference with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court does not call for. Hence, there - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48282 RSA No. 113 of 2019 is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16