- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI A.C. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST AVATHI HOBLI CHIKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT-577101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI H MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. B.A. SANDHYA W/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @ LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI N M CHARAN S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @ LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SRI N M NIKETHAN S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @ LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 4. SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 5. SRI A C POORNESH S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST AVATHI HOBLI CHIKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT-577101 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and also they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit but the defendants have started to interfere with their possession over the suit schedule property. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.2 appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit property was granted to late Chennegowda under Saguvali Chit dated 27.07.1965 and thereafter the said grant was confirmed on 19.03.1978. After the death of Chennegowda, his legal heirs have executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 13.05.1994 for valid consideration and delivered all the title deeds to him. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 Subsequently, the katha was changed to his name. The property was a vacant land at the time of execution of the sale deed. Subsequently, this defendant has cultivated this property with coffee and also planted areca with silver oaks. It is contended that the plaintiffs with an intention to make wrongful gain have filed this false suit suppressing all the material facts. The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and averments made in the plaint are only with an intention to knock off the suit property. The boundaries given in the plaint is also wrong. The Government has made correspondence with this defendant to exchange the government land i.e., Sy.No.164/2, measuring 5 acres to the hiduvali land of this defendant. The Government with an assurance of grant in favour of this defendant has constructed school building, Panchayath office and playground. The grant of land in the name of this defendant is in progress. The plaintiffs with an intention to disturb the process of grant, have filed the false suit. 4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and also allowed the parties to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 lead their evidence. Plaintiff No.3 examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D9 and other defendants have not contested the matter. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record held that sale was made in the year 1994 itself and suit was filed in the year 2016 that too a sale deed was executed by the legal representatives of Chennegowda including plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The GPA is also produced at Ex.D1 and the same is not disputed. It is only contended that GPA is obtained by playing fraud but the same is also not substantiated by placing any cogent evidence. Apart from that the sale was made in the year 1994 itself and all the documents are also transferred thus, the plaintiffs have not in possession of the suit schedule property from 1994 onwards. Considering all these documents and oral evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court by plaintiff No.3. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 5. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the Points and having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, in paragraphs 13 and 14 comes to the conclusion that it is not in dispute that land was granted in favour of Chennegowda and after the death of Chennegowda, his wife and one of his son have executed the power of attorney as per Ex.D1 and in turn, the power of attorney holder executed the sale deed in the year 1994 itself. The First Appellate Court also taken note that sale was made in the year 1994 and after 22 years, made an allegation of fraud in obtaining the GPA and the same has not been explained in detail in the plaint. There must be a clear averment in the plaint with regard to the fraud is concerned but the same is not found and no material is found. The First Appellate Court particularly making an observation under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC, the plaintiffs are required to plead the particulars of fraud. But in the case on hand, except stating that defendants have played fraud, nothing has been pleaded that is how the fraud has been played. All these factors were taken note of by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also relied upon - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PREM SINGH AND OTHERS vs BIRBAL AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 wherein the Apex Court held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed therefore, prima facie it would be valid in law. Further in the case of VIMAL CHAND GHEVARCHAND JAIN vs RAMAKANT EKANATH JADOO reported in (2009) 5 SCC 713 it is held that registered deed of sale carries presumption that transaction was genuine one. Having considered the revenue records and sale deed at Ex.D4 produced by the defendants, comes to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs falsifies the case and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court rightly considered both oral and documentary evidence and confirmed judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Chennegowda who - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 is the grantee died intestate and hence, all the family members would have sign the sale deed dated 13.05.1994. The counsel would vehemently contend that no proper stamp duty paid on notarised GPA and based on the said GPA, sale was made. All these factors were not taken note of by both the Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law. 7. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also considering the material on record particularly pleadings of the plaintiffs, it discloses that the plaintiffs have not stated anything about the sale deed executed in the year 1994, whether it was come into their knowledge or not. But the fact is that the sale deed was executed in the year 1994 itself and suit was filed in the year 2016 i.e., after lapse of 22 years. When the sale deed was executed, even the possession was also parted with. The contention was taken by the appellant that there was a fraud in getting the power of attorney but clear averments are not found in the plaint with regard to the manner in which fraud was played and except stating that there was a fraud, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 sale deed was executed by the GPA holder which has been signed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 but PW3 has not signed the same. But the fact is that sale was made in the year 1994 and while filing the suit, the age of plaintiff No.3 is mentioned as 45 years and not challenged the same immediately after the sale within 3 years. Apart from that there was a delay in filing the suit after the sale of the year 1994 and suit was filed in 2016 and no proper explanation with regard to the filing of the suit in 2016. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court while considering the material on record and also taken note of the fact that all the original documents of temporary Saguvali Chit and permanent Saguvali Chit was also handed over and sale deed was also executed in the year 1994 and RTC Extracts and Mutation Register Extracts also clearly disclose that even subsequent to the sale of the property, all revenue records are transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser. When such both oral and documentary evidence as well as question of fact and question of law was considered by Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51936 RSA No. 1490 of 2023 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN