- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.419 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S SRI SIDDAPPA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. SRI CHIKKANNA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT SINGANAHALLI, HOSSUR HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 208 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RUDRAIAH M, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O OBALAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE HOSSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561208 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GOWRIBIDANUR AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that the suit schedule property was acquired vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.1978 and the defendants without having any right, title or possession over the suit schedule property made an attempt to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the said property. Hence, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 filed the suit. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the averments made in the plaint is not correct and apart from that they claimed that they are in possession of the suit property and they are enjoying the same as the legal successors of one A K Chikkakadirappa who is the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and the grandfather of other defendants. That said A.K. Chikkakadirappa's first son by name Naraseeyappa has been in peaceful possession of one acre of land and that the defendants have been in peaceful possession of 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.172 of Singhanahalli village, Hossur hobli, Gowribidanur taluk. It is further contented that prior to 1983-84, all the revenue documents pertaining to Sy.No.172 were standing in the name of A.K. Chikkakadirappa by virtue of pouthi varasu and that the Khata and RTC were mutated to the name of defendant No.1 and Naraseeyappa jointly void M.R.No.62/83-84. That all the revenue documents pertaining to Sy.No.172 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas stands in the name of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 Naraseeyappa and defendant No.1 jointly. That the defendants are regularly paying the requisite taxes and hence, the prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 4. The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint as well as in the written statement framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the admission on the part of DW1 in the class examination that his father had sold the property in the year 1978 in respect of Sy.No.172 and also taken note of the claim made by the defendants in paragraph 17. In paragraph 18, the Trial Court taken note of the admission given by DW2 that she is the second wife of Chinnappa and her name has not been mentioned in the family tree affidavit which his marked as Ex.D1. Defendant No.3 who has been examined as DW1 deposed that scheduled property was inherited by his father Chinnappa. In paragraph 19, a discussion was made that except Ex.D8 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 tax paid receipt pertaining to Sy.No.172 dated 24.11.2006 not produced any recent document and apart from that plaintiff also relied upon the sale deed as well as the document of RTC of 2013-14 and certified copy of mutation register bearing No.62/83-84. When DW1 categorically admits that there was a sale in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1978, the answer elicited from the mouth of the witness that in sometimes, the property stands in the name of the defendants, will not create any right. The fact that originally property belongs to the defendants’ family and the same was sold long back i.e., in the year 1978 and the same is not in dispute. When there was a sale and the same was not disputed by the defendants, the title follows the possession. Hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. 5. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal formulated the points and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 having re-appreciated the material available on record taken note of sale deed at Ex.P1 and also answered Point Nos.1 to 3 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court rightly considered the documents which have been placed on record and also the admission on the part of DW1 in the cross-examination wherein he deposed that after the death of Chinnappa, the name of defendant No.1 had been mutated by way of inheritance and the mutation appears to have taken place after the execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and that will not create any right and only the document of mutation came into existence after the death of their father, but sale deed was executed on 12.01.1978, which gains the credence over the mutation entry. The fact is discussed in paragraph 17 by the First Appellate Court and held that the RTCs and tax paid receipts are not only the conclusive proofs of possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the property but also the sale deed is produced and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 the recitals of the sale deed clearly disclose the delivery of possession. 6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court is that when the possession is with the appellants, there cannot be any order of granting of permanent injunction and prays this Court to frame the substantive question of law that granting the relief of declaration when the defendants have denied the possession does not arise and the plaintiff also failed to prove his possession. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the appellants deposed that when the possession is with the appellants and the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his possession, there cannot be any order of permanent injunction. The said contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants cannot be accepted since DW1 and DW2 have admitted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 the very execution of the said deed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1978 and the registered document also indicates the delivery of possession but mere entry in the MR is subsequent to the death of father and hence, the pauthi varasu mutation will not create any right in favour of the defendants and the same will not substantiate the possession as contented by the appellants’ counsel. The registered document prevails over the subsequent document of MR and MR also came into existence on account of death of their father and the very father had executed the sale deed in the year 1978 and the same is admitted by DW1 and DW2. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel appearing to the appellants that the appellants are in possession cannot be accepted since the title follows the possession. The sale made by the father of DW1 also not in dispute and even not questioned the sale deed executed in the year 1978 in favour of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45822 RSA No. 419 of 2025 substantive question of law when both the question of fact and question of law are considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: Order The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN