- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1387 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: B.C. MUNIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE SRI. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.178, BYRATHI, DODDAGUBBI POST, BENGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 149. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SKANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. INDIRA W/O LATE SRI. S.S. HEGDE MAJOR 2. SRI SUBARAYA SETHARAM HEGDE S/O LATE SRI. S.S.HEGDE MAJOR 3. SRI. GANAPATHI SEETHARAMA HEGDE S/O LATE SRI. S.S. HEGDE MAJOR 4. SMT. ANURADHA D/O LATE SRI. S.S.HEGDE MAJOR Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 5. SMT GAYATHRI D/O LATE SRI. S.S. HEGDE MAJOR 6. SRI. NARAYANAMURTHY SEETHARAM HEGDE S/O LATE SRI. S.S. HEGDE MAJOR ALL R/AT ARAGI, ITIGE GRAMA, ITEGE POST, SIDDAPURA TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA. 7. SMT. KALPANA UMESH PATEL W/O LATE UMESH KANTHIBHAI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 8. MR. ANKIT UMESH PATEL, S/O LATE UMESH KANTHIBHAI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 2ND MAIN, 12TH A CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2, R4 TO R6) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.08.2020 PASSED IN RA NO.67/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.1919/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Skanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Raghunath M. D., learned counsel for appellant and Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The present second appeal is filed questioning the validity of the judgments passed in O.S.No.1919/2008 and RA No.67/2018 whereby the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that he has perfected the title over suit ‘B’ schedule property and order of permanent injunction came to be dismissed. 3. Suit ‘B’ schedule property reads as under: 5 Acres of land in re-Sy No.11 Kyalsanahalli, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk bounded on: East by: Portion of land in Sy. No.11 West by: Road North by: Muniramaiah’s land South by: Property of MR Hegde in block No.7 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 4. Plaintiff laid a claim in the suit by contending that he is the owner of suit ‘A’ schedule property by way of grant from the Government. It is his case that based on the title in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property, he started enjoying suit ‘B’ schedule property for a period of 26 years continuously without any hindrance. Therefore, defendants are to be restrained from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by declaring that he is the owner by adverse possession in respect of suit schedule ‘B’ property as well. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and denied the case of the plaintiff and stated that before the grant of land to the defendants, plaintiff no doubt illegally occupied two acres of the land in suit ‘B’ schedule property. But he has been evicted by the revenue authorities to the extent of two acres. Thereafter, adding three more acres and conducting survey, five acres of land in Sy.No.11, New No.90 was granted in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 6. They also contended that the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is thus not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues and also an additional issue with regard to the title to the suit property to be established by the defendants, recorded the evidence of the parties and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by answering issues against the plaintiff and additional issue in favour of the defendants. 8. While so recording the finding, learned Trial Judge took into consideration the probative value of the documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. Ex.D.4 which is the grant certificate in favour of defendants has been taken into consideration where under there is a clear mention that plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation to the extent of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 two acres of the land in Sy.No.11 of Kylsanhalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and he was evicted from two acres of the property and thereafter, adding 3 more acres, grant was made in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6. Admittedly, two acres of the land was belonging to Sri.S.S.Hegde earlier. 9. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.67/2018. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, reappreciated the factual aspects and material evidence placed on record in the light of the appeal grounds and dismissal the appeal by recording a categorical finding that even as per Exs.P.5 to P.7 which are the prime documents on which the plaintiff banked upon, did not make out a case that he was in adverse possession of entire suit ‘B’ schedule property. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court on the following grounds:  Both the Courts below ought to have seen that the plaintiff has proved his case by producing the documents and proved that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'B' property  Both the Courts below ought to have seen that the defendants pleaded that they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the property; however no documents are forthcoming to prove their claim.  Both the Courts below ought to have seen that a suggestion to PW-1 at page 4 of cross examination "...It is not true to suggest Thasildar has taken possession of Schedule 'B' property in pursuance of his order dated 23.07.2008..." which clinches the issue as the suit is filed in the year 2008 and as on date of the suit, the plaintiff was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property  Both the Courts below except discussing the Ex P series has not considered the relevant materials produced by the plaintiff to prove his possession over the Schedule 'B' property - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020  Both the Courts below erred in not considering the decision relied upon by the plaintiff  Both the Courts below has exceeded its limit in considering the plea of animus intention of the plaintiff while considering the plea and intention of the plaintiff and erred in holding that his disclosing possession at same time the intention to take alternate land is itself goes to show that whether he possessed such land with animus intention as shield to resist the title of the defendants over the 'B' schedule property, erred in coming to such a conclusion  Both the Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that if the plaintiff seeks a prayer of adverse possession, he has no equity in his favour and as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner  Both the Courts below after coming to the conclusion starting point of limitation begins from the expression of hostile animus amounting to denial of title of the real owner to his knowledge. This must continue for uninterrupted period of 12 years..." ought to have seen that as on the date of suit, the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the property and even now the plaintiff continues in possession and enjoyment of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 the property having constructed the pump house and having electricity and the defendants are not produced any material to prove their possession which clearly shows that the plaintiff has proved points on limitation... erred in dismissing the suit  Both the Courts has framed additional issue no.1 which was not at all necessary as there was no counter claim, as such framing of additional issues and answering the same in favour of defendants is the Trial court has exceeded its limit  The learned Appellant Judge failed to consider the decision passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravindra Kaur Vs Manjit Kaur, reported in Civil Appeal No 7764/2014 and S LP (Civil) No. 8332-8333/2014, disposed on 07.08.2019 in regard to maintainability of the suit on the relief of adverse possession and erred in considering the same. 12. In the appeal, following substantial questions of law are also raised: “1. Inspite of proving uninterrupted possession adverse to the Respondents and also inaction on the part of the Respondents in taking possession of the Schedule property, are the Courts below justified in dismissing the suit and Appeal? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 2. In the light of specific case pleaded by the Plaintiff in regard to adverse possession on the Schedule property was it not necessary in law for the courts below before recording a finding that the Plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the Schedule 'B' property?” 13. Learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that there was no claim made by the plaintiff with regard to suit ‘A’ schedule property and by virtue of the grant made by the plaintiff in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property, for more than 26 years, plaintiff enjoyed the suit ‘B’ schedule property. Therefore, plaintiff perfected his title over the suit property by way of adverse possession and sought for allowing the appeal. 14. He would further contend that necessary ingredients to attract the plea of adverse possession though pleaded if not in proper words, both the Courts did not appreciate the fact that plaintiff was in possession of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 the property for more than 26 years without there being any hindrance, the declaration ought to have been granted by the learned Trial Judge or atleast by the First Appellate Court especially in view of the probative value of Exs.P.5 to P.7. 15. He would also contend that sale of the property by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 in the year 2010, defendant Nos.7 and 8 did not possess any better title than that of defendant Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, non interference by defendant Nos.1 to 6 with regard to the suit property for more than 26 years ought to have been taken into consideration by learned Trial Judge or atleast by the First Appellate Court. Non consideration thereof has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice which needs to be considered by this Court as substantial question of law and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants for more than one reasons. 17. Firstly, he would contend that plaintiff did not fulfill all necessary ingredients to plead for declaration by way of adverse possession in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property. 18. Secondly, the very fact that the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession to the extent of two acres of the land of suit ‘B’ schedule property which was earlier belonging to Sri.S.S.Hegde has been taken note of by the revenue authorities. After issuing notice to the plaintiff, necessary action was initiated and an endorsement was also given to the plaintiff which has been relied upon by the plaintiff himself. Revenue authorities after obtaining the possession from the plaintiff, granting authority has added three more acres of the land and ultimately, granted five acres of land in Sy.No.11, New No.90 of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 Kyalsnahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff at no stretch of imagination could be maintained for the relief of adverse possession especially in view of the probative value of Ex.D.4 and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 19. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property, there was no objection or interference for enjoyment whatsoever by the defendants. 21. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that though plaintiff has been granted suit ‘A’ schedule property, on the basis of the said grant, not only ‘A’ schedule property was enjoyed by the plaintiff but also suit ‘B’ schedule property was enjoyed by the plaintiff for more than 26 years. To establish the said aspect of the matter, plaintiff banked upon the probative value of Exs.P.5 to 7. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 22. Courts below have considered the probative value of Exs.P.5 to 7 meticulously. 23. Admittedly, they are revenue entries. Revenue entries would have a preferential value only in the absence of a contra title propounded by the adversary. At the most, revenue entries could be treated as the payment of ‘kandaya’ (Tax) for a property which is in his occupation. 24. In the case on hand, the probative value of Ex.D.4 when kept in juxtaposition with Exs.P.5 to 7, the contents of Ex.D.4 is crystal clear that even before the grant was made to defendant Nos.1 to 6 under Ex.D.4, there was an application filed by the plaintiff with regard to his occupation of two acres in the land belonging to Sri.S.S.Hegde which is now granted in favour of defendants. 25. An endorsement came to be issued by the revenue authorities on the application filed by the plaintiff which has been extracted by the learned Trial Judge in the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 impugned judgment. Said endorsement shows that plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of two acres of the land belonging to Sri.S.S.Hegde and necessary action was initiated by revenue authorities even before the grant of suit ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6. 26. It is also found from the contents of Ex.D.4 that by the process known to law, the revenue authorities evicted the plaintiff from the unauthorized occupation of two acres in the land belonging to Sri.S.S.Hegde and land was taken possession by the granting authority and thereafter, three more acres of the land in the same survey number which was also belonging to Sri.S.S.Hegde and thereafter, it has been granted in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6. 27. There is no effective cross-examination in respect of contents of Ex.D.4. Even before the grant, if the plaintiff was evicted to the extent of two acres in suit - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 ‘B’ schedule property by the revenue authorities, it should not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff that he continued to be in possession of suit ‘B’ schedule property to the extent of five acres from 26 years which is against the contents of Ex.D.4. 28. At any given point of time, it not the case of the plaintiff himself that he was in occupation of entire suit ‘B’ schedule property as his own documents would depict that he was in unauthorized occupation only to the extent of two acres of the property. Since plaintiff was evicted by the revenue authorities, even that two acres of the property and peaceful possession of the property was vested with the revenue authorities. Thereafter, granted five acres of the land. Thus, title in defendant Nos.1 to 6 vide Ex.D.4 stands established and additional issue held in favour of defendants is just and proper. 29. Therefore, when the plaintiff was unable to establish before the Court that he was in continuous - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30332 RSA No. 1387 of 2020 possession against the interest of true owner (defendant Nos.1 to 6 vide Ex.D.4) for a continuous period of 12 years, relief of declaration based on the adverse possession negated by both the Courts needs no interference in this second appeal having regard to the scope of Section 100 of CPC. 30. In view of the foregoing discussions, following: ORDER i. Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal would not merit for further consideration. ii. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. iii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK