- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100381 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHALLA NARASIMHULU S/O. LATE CHALLA HANUMANTHA RAIDU, SINCE DECEASED HIS LRS. 1A. SMT. C. SUDHA W/O. LATE CHALLA NARASIMHALU, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: S.N.PET, KAMPLI, BALLARI DIST – 583 132. 1B. C. HARSHA S/O. LATE CHALLA NARASIMHALU, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: S.N.PET, KAMPLI, BALLARI DIST – 583 132. 1C. C. HARSHA S/O. LATE CHALLA NARASIMHALU, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: S.N.PET, KAMPLI, BALLARI DIST – 583 132. APPELLANT NO.1(B) AND 1(C) ARE MINORS, HENCE, REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1(A) 2. CHALLA CHANDRU BABU NAIDU S/O. LATE CHALLA HANUMANTHA RAIDU, AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: S.N. PET, KAMPLI, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 3. SMT. CHALLA LAKSHMI DEVI W/O. LATE CHALLA HANUMANTHA RAIDU, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: S.N. PET, KAMPLI, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 4. SMT. LALITHA D/O. LATE CHALLA HANUMANTHA RAIDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: S.N. PET, KAMPLI, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 5. SMT. C.KAVITHA D/O. LATE CHALLA HANUMANTHA RAIDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: S.N. PET, KAMPLI, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 6. M.B. RAJASHEKAR S/O. M. BASAVARAJ, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BAMBOO BAZAAR, SIRAGUPPA ROD, DIST: BALLARI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. LATE SHIVARAMAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAMPLI KOTTALA, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 2. M. SHIVASHANKARA S/O. LATE SHIVARAMAPPA, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NO.42, 4TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050. 3. M. MAHADEVAIAH S/O. LATE SHIVARAMAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAMPLI KOTTALA, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 4. M. ESHWARAIAH S/O. LATE SHIVARAMAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: CHOWDESHWARI PROVISIONS STORES, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 CHENNAPAP REDDY LAYOUT, VIRAT NAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 068. 5. SRI. GONI GULAPPA SIDDALINGAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: KAMPLI, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 6. SRI. REVANNA S/O. NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANTS, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ARALIHALLI, KAMPLI, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 7. P. JAYA PRAKASH CHOWDARY S/O P. NARAYANAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: S.N. PET, KAMPLI, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. 8. N. PRABHAKAR S/O. N. VENKATESHWARA RAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: S.N. PET, KAMPLI, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI – 583 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI. JITENDRA VARMA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REGULA SECOND APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.96/2015 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE IN O.S.NO.190/2010 DATED 28.09.2015 AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 IN O.S.NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is by defendant No.1(a-e) and defendant No.6 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 passed in O.S.No.190/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosapete, by which the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 herein is decreed which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2020 passed in R.A.No.96/2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosapete. 2. The above suit in O.S.No.190/2010 is filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration declaring that the deeds of sale dated 24.03.2007 and 12.09.2007 as null and void and consequently to cancel the same directing the Sub-Registrar, Kampli to make necessary entries and to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property with the consequent relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 3. Subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy.No.58/A measuring 11 acres 2 cents situated at Aravalli village, Kampli Taluk. Case of the plaintiffs is that they are the sons of one late Sri.Shivaramappa. That the said Shivaramappa had four sons, namely, Mallikarjuna, Shivashankar, Madavaiah and Eshwaraiah. He had purchased the suit schedule properties in terms of deed of sale dated 27.09.1969 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the then. He had obtained financial assistance from bank against the collateral security of the suit schedule properties. The said Shivaramappa passed away on 16.06.1988 leaving him behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. After the death of Shivaramappa, State Bank of India, Hosapete Branch had issued notice to the plaintiffs, calling upon them to clear the loan amount. As such, the plaintiffs have cleared the loan amount on 14.03.2009. That the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. That during the month of March 2010, defendant No.6 along with his henchmen dispossessed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 plaintiffs from the suit properties. Plaintiffs obtained the RTC extracts in the month of November 2007 and to their surprise found that name of the defendant No.1 had been mutated in terms of MR No.76/2006-07 on the basis of a deed of sale dated 30.04.2007 and further entry in the RTC reveal that the revenue records were again mutated in the name of defendant No.6 vide MR No.15/2007-08 in turn on the basis of a deed of sale dated 23.09.2007. Plaintiffs approached the Sub-Register Office, obtained the certified copies of the deeds of sale under which the defendant No.1 claimed to have acquired the suit properties. 4. That on perusal of the said document, the plaintiffs learnt that defendant No.2 impersonating himself as Goni Gulappa Siddalingappa and defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other had created the alleged deed of sale. That the Goni Gulappa passed away on 12.05.1974 and Goni Siddalingappa had passed away on 16.05.1977. Plaintiffs accordingly lodged a complaint - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in PC No.3/2009. Matter was referred for investigation which was registered in Crime No.13/2009. During the investigation the police have collected the material and had sent for fingerprints analysis/FSL report which was submitted by the fingerprint expert. The LTM found on the document did not match the LTM of Goni Gulappa Siddalingappa. That the defendant No.1 is an influential person having political clout. Defendant No.2 is none other than his servant. Defendants No.4 and 5 are the witnesses. Defendant No.6 is the subsequent purchaser of properties who has not verified the records. That defendant No.2 had committed fraud and had dispossessed the plaintiffs from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties. Hence, the suit. 5. On service of summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel. Upon his demise, his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants No.1(a, b, c, d, e) and defendant No.6 appeared through - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 their counsel. Defendants No.4 and 5 appeared through their counsel. Defendants No.2, 3 and defendant No.1(a) were placed exparte. 6. Defendant No.1 had filed his written statement during his lifetime which was adopted by defendant No.6 denying the entire case of the plaintiffs. It is contended that defendant No.1 and his family members have been cultivating the suit lands for over 25 years on crop share basis under the original owner. The sister-in-law of defendant No.1 namely Smt. Ramalakshmamma was actually cultivating the lands and her name was shown as actual cultivator in Column No.12(2) of the ROR. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father was in possession of the suit properties at any point of time. Since the defendant No.1 and his family members have been in actual possession of the suit properties, he had purchased the same from its original owner for a valuable sale consideration under deed of sale dated 24.03.2007 and had accordingly obtained mutation of his name vide MR No.76/2006-07. Defendant - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 No.1 and his family members Smt. Ramalakshmamma have been in actual physical, exclusive, open and uninterrupted hostile possession to the knowledge of the true owner for more than 12 years. As such, they have perfected their title by adverse possession. That the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit properties had been extinguished in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Limitation Act. Hence, sought for dismissal suit. 7. Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiffs prove the 2nd defendant imposing/Acting himself as Goni Gulappa Siddalingappa executed the sale deed in favour of 1st defendant and they again created the sale deed in the name of 6th defendant with a fraudulent intention as alleged in plaint over the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that, the alleged dispossession of the plaintiffs in the month of March 2010 by the 6th defendant over the suit schedule properties as alleged in the plaint? 3. Whether defendant No.1/LRS D1(a) to (e) prove that, the title of the first defendant by way of adverse possession as alleged in the written statement? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for in the plaint? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 6. What order or decree?” 8. Plaintiffs No.1 and 3 examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2 and exhibited 15 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.15. Defendant No.1(a) and defendant No.6 examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 and exhibited 4 documents marked as Ex.D.1 to D.4 and in the cross- examination Ex.D.5 to D.12 were confronted and were marked through defendant No.2. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence answered issue No.1, 2 and 5 in the affirmative, issue No.3 and 4 in the negative and consequently decreed the suit as sought for. 9. Being agreed, defendants No.1(a-e) preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.96/2015. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: “1. Whether appellant proves that the Judgment and decree of trial court is arbitrary perverse and capricious? 2. Whether appellant proves that the additional evidence produced under I.A.No.IV under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is necessary for effective adjudication of matter in dispute between parties? 3. Whether Judgment and decree passed by the trial court needs to be interfered? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 4. What order?” 10. On re-appreciation of the matter, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the defendants No.1(a-e) and defendant No.6 are before this Court. 11. Sri.K.L.Patil counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that though the plaintiffs have sought for relief of declaration and possession, have not given specific date of their dispossession which was essential for the purpose of calculation of limitation contemplated in Section 27 of the Limitation Act. Further, he submits that the averments in the plaint and the evidence adduced by the defendants would indicate that the defendants were in possession of the properties since the year 1988. Suit is filed in the year 2010. A suit for possession ought to have been filed within - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 period of 12 years from the date of dispossession. That in the light of these admitted facts of the matter, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought not to have decreed the suit as sought for delivering possession to the plaintiffs. 12. He further submits that along with the regular appeal defendant No.1 had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of certain documents in the nature of partition that had been entered into amongst the members of the plaintiffs family in which the suit schedule properties had not been reflected, meaning thereby the said properties were never in possession of the plaintiffs. He further submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit based on the FSL report, without adverting to the factual aspect of the matter brought on record by the parties. The Trial Court and the First Appeal Court have not appreciated the evidence led in by the parties with regard to possession. As such, the reasoning and the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and the First Appeal Court suffers from perversity. 13. He further submits the original sale deed dated 27.09.1969 under which the plaintiffs are claiming the title has not been brought on record. Only the certified copy was produced and marked as Ex.P.1. Thus, there is perversity in appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court giving raise to the substantial question of law. 14. Per contra, Sri. Hanumanthreddy Sahukar learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs justifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court at the outset submits that admittedly father of the plaintiffs had purchased the suit properties in the year 1969 from one Goni Gulappa and Siddhalingappa who are the very same vendors allegedly executed deeds of sale in the year 2007 in favour of defendant No.1 in turn executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.6. He submits the said Goni Gulappa and Siddhalingappa could - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 not have executed the deeds of sale in respect of the suit schedule properties having conveyed the same in favour of the plaintiffs, as they retained no right, title and interest in themselves. His further submits that it is brought on record that Goni Gulappa died in the year 12.05.1974 and Siddhalingappa passed away on 16.05.1977 as per Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.12 respectively and that the evidentiary value of the said documents not having been impeached, the claim of the defendants of they purchasing the properties from the said persons cannot be accepted. 15. He further submits that as rightly taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, defendant No.2 was guilty of impersonation and the reliance placed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the report obtained pursuant to the criminal case filed by the plaintiff cannot be found fault with. 16. He further submits that the father of the plaintiffs during his lifetime had availed financial assistance from Bank of India which was repaid and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 cleared as seen in Ex.P4 dated 23.07.2010 which would only indicate that the father of the plaintiff during his lifetime and thereafter the plaintiffs have been exercising their rights of ownership over the suit property. As regards, entry of name of Ramalakshmamma, the sister- in-law of defendant No.1 in the cultivators column, he submits that the said entry was illegal without any basis and the plaintiffs learnt about the same just three years prior to filing of the suit. As such, he submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be found to be one barred by limitation. Hence, he submits that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration and seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 17. Heard. Perused the records. 18. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.58A measuring 11 acres 2 cents, originally belonged to Goni Gulappa and Siddhalingappa. Claim of the plaintiffs is that their father, Shivaramappa had purchased the suit properties from the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 aforesaid Goni Gulappa and Siddhalingappa in terms of deed of sale dated 27.09.1969 produced at Ex.P1. 19. Whereas, the claim of defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 is that they purchased the very same property from the very same vendors in terms of deed of sale dated 24.03.2007, which was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 in turn executed the deed of sale dated 12.09.2007 in favour of defendant No.6. 20. Gulappa and Siddhalingappa having executed deed of sale as per Ex.P1 in favour of father of the plaintiff did not retain any right, title and interest in any portion of the suit property as such, they could not have executed the deed of sale at Ex.P10 in favour of defendant No.1. The extent of the property is shown in the deed of sale at Ex.P1 and the extent of property shown in the deed of sale at Ex.P10 is one and the same. Thus, Gulappa and Siddhalingappa not having retained anything in themselves could not have executed the deed of sale in - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 respect of the very same property in favour of defendant No.1 as sought to be made out by defendants. 21. Having said thus further reference to Ex.P13 and P12 which are the death certificates produced by the plaintiffs, the contents of which have remained unchallenged, would further indicate that the said Goni Gulappa and Siddhlingappa having passed away on 12.05.1974 and 16.05.1977 respectively. In the absence of any contrary material evidence being brought on record by the defendants to prove otherwise, the only irresistible conclusion to be drawn is that there is no possibility of said persons executing the deed of sale in favour of defendant No.1 as sought to be contended by the defendants. 22. Reliance placed on by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the FSL report is of insignificant consequences in the light of the aforesaid material evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs. 23. As regards the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, Ex.P4 is a letter issued by the Bank of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 India with regard to discharge of the loan which had been availed by the father of the plaintiffs against the suit property. The said document has remained unchallenged. 24. Adverting to the claim of name of the sister-in- law of defendant No.1 namely Ramalakshmamma having been mutated in the revenue records, her name appears to have been inserted in the cultivators column. It is not clear on what basis, the name of Ramalakshmamma has been inserted in the cultivators column though it is claim that on the crop basis. The said name appears to have been inserted in the year 1988, while the said property by then had been purchased by the Shivramappa father of the plaintiff in terms of Ex.P1 dated 27.09.1969 and he having been exercising his right over the same by availing the financial assistance from the Bank of India. 25. Presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act is available with regard to the correctness of the entry till they are rebutted by the plaintiffs by adducing legally admissible evidence. Thus, even if, such - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8472 RSA No. 100381 of 2020 an entry had been made for whatever reason, in the light of the documentary evidence now produced by the plaintiffs before the Court, the presumptive value of the said entry stands rebutted and the same cannot be read into to construe to have created any right, title and interest either in the name of said Ramalakshmama, sister-in-law of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. 26. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having taken into these aspects of the matter, in the considerable view of this Court have come to just conclusion in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal filed by defendant No.1(a) to defendant No.1(e) no substantial question of law would therefore arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 27. Pending applications, if any, are disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SH-para 1 to 11 SMM-para 12 to till end CT-ASC/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7