- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. K.L. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O DONNE BORANNA SIDDAIAH @ LINGAIAH, R/A S.I. KODIHALLI VILLAGE, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. THEJESH, ADVOCATE) AND: G.D. YOGANANDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE DOLLEGOWDA R/A K. GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571446. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHUBANKAR .C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH .R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 25.09.2014 PASSED IN RA NO. 47/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2008 PASSED IN OS NO. 310/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) JMFC MANDYA. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2014 in RA No.47/2010 on the file of Fast Track Court, Mandya, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2008 in OS No.310/2005 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandya decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property belonged to the father of the plaintiff- Dollegowda and the father of the plaintiff had purchased the same from the original owner of the suit schedule property - Siddhaiah as per the registered sale deed dated 10.06.1971. It is further stated that the father of the plaintiff died on 30.12.1977 and thereafter, the plaintiff is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the defendant is interfering with the suit schedule property and as such the plaintiff has filed OS No.310/2005 seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed the detailed written statement contending that, the defendant has purchased the suit schedule property from one Kempegowda as per the registered sale deeds dated 15.09.2003 and 31.05.2004. It is also stated that, Kempegowda is the brother of Dollegowda (father of the plaintiff). Since there is a partition in the family of Dollegowda and Kempegowda and the suit schedule property is allotted in favour of the Kempegowda, the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has framed the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 7 documents and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 same were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. Defendant has examined four witnesses as DW1 to DW4 and produced 5 documents and same were marked as Exs.D1 to D5. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 04.04.2008, decreed the suit, and feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred RA No.47/2010 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 25.09.2014, dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No. 310/2005. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 5. This Court vide order dated 29.06.2016, formulated the following substantial questions of law: " 1) Where the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction when the plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the property? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 2) Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the admissions, contradiction and inconsistency in the pleadings and evidence in particular the oral evidence of PW1, PW2 and material documents Ex..P1 to Ex.P7? 3) Where the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the oral evidence of DWs 1 to 9 and material documents D1 to D4 which clearly establish that the defendant is the owner and is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property ? 4) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in rejecting I.A3 filed under order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Court Commissioner without appreciating that there was serious dispute with regard to identity, location, boundaries and measurement of the suit schedule property?" 6. I heard Sri N. Thejesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Shubankar C, learned counsel for Sri Chandrakanth.R.Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 7. Sri N. Thejesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the land in question originally belonged to Siddaiah and the same was purchased by Dollegowda - father of the plaintiff. However, the said purchase was made out of the joint family income. In the partition held during 1979, the subject matter of the suit was allotted in favour of Kempegowda - brother of Dollegowda and as such the defendant therein has purchased the same as per the registered sales deeds. Dated 15.09.2003 and 31.05.2004 and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, both the Courts below have ignored the revenue records produced by the defendant and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, Sri Shubankar C, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, originally the land in question belonged to Siddaiah, and thereafter father of plaintiff - Dollegowda had purchased the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 10.06.1971. It is the case of the defendant that, there was a partition in the family of Dollegowda and the land in question was allotted in favour of his brother-Kempegowda. 10. In the light of these aspects, on careful consideration of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, would indicate that, the defendant herein has not produced any document to establish that a partition was effected in the family of Dollegowda and Kempegowda and the subject matter of the suit has been identified as the joint family property of Dollegowda and Kempegowda. In that view of the matter, though the mutation extracts have been produced by the defendant to establish that the same stands in the name of Kempegowda, however, that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36231 RSA No. 91 of 2015 does not establish the right of the property since the land in question has been purchased by Dollegowda from the original owner- Siddaiah as per the registered sale dated 10.06.1971. 11. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the evidence on record would indicate that, the subject land was purchased by the father of the plaintiff - Dollegowda from Siddaiah as per registered sale deed dated 10.06.1971, and therefore, I am of the view that, the judgment and decree passed by the both the Courts below is just and proper and no interference is called for in this appeal. The substantial question of law referred to above favours the plaintiff. 11. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50