- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1403 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.CHANNAPPA S/O LATE SRI MADAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(A) GOWRAMMA W/O LATE L. CHANNAPPA AGED 68 YEARS R/O MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 1(B) MAHADEV S/O LATE L CHANNAPPA AGED 45 YEARS R/O MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(C) MAHESH C S/O LATE L CHANNAPPA AGED 43 YEARS R/O MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 1(D) C. BABU S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED 38 YEARS R/O MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 1(E) M.C. SHASHIGOUDA S/O LATE L CHANNAPPA AGED 37 YEARS R/O MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 1(F) M.C. UMESH S/O LATE L CHANNAPPA AGED 33 YEARS R/O MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VAISHALI HEGDE BY HEGDE AND RAO ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI.S.D.CHANDRA S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA AGED 49 YEARS R/O MADHUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 2. SRI AMARNATH S/O DR RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O LEELAVATHI EXTENSION MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 20.6.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.91/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 9.6.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.424/2000 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), MADDUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2013, passed in R.A.No.91/2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Mandya, and the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2009 passed in O.S.No.424/2000 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Maddur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration, to declare that he is the absolute owner in possession of the ‘B’ schedule property out of the property shown as A,B,C,D in the plaint rough sketch, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. 3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff was in unauthorised possession of 3 guntas, and 4 guntas of land, thus, in all 7 guntas of the land in Sy.No.51 of Maddur village, for about 20 years before the grant in 1973. Out of 7 guntas, 3 guntas of the land was granted to the plaintiff for a house site by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya, vide order dated 30.04.1973. The plaintiff is in possession of 3 guntas of land. Subsequently, 4 guntas of land, was situated towards the eastern side of the aforesaid 3 guntas of land, was also granted by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 Tahsildar, Mandya on 24.07.1989, and a saguvali chit was issued on 14.08.1989. Mutation entries for 3 guntas and 4 guntas, which are adjacent to each other, were accepted by the Revenue Inspector in M.R.No.2/73-74 dated 22.10.1973, and M.R.No.2/91-92 dated 24.04.1991, respectively. 3.2. The plaintiff initially filed a suit regarding 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.963. The name of the plaintiff is entered in column Nos. 9 and 12 in the RTC. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment to the plaint by stating that he was in possession of 4 guntas of land described in the schedule of the plaint and shown the same in the letters A,B,C and D in the rough sketch appended, describing the same as schedule ‘A’ property. Thereafter, stating that the disputed property comprises only 2 guntas of land (within the said 4 guntas), describing the same in the letters, E, F, D & B in the rough sketch. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. It is contended that 6 guntas of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 the land was granted to one Dr.Ranganath, the father of defendant No.2, which is towards the east of 4 guntas of the land granted to the plaintiff, assigning the survey number as Sy.No.963. It is contended that defendant No.2 attempted to encroach 2 guntas of the land in schedule ‘B’ property under the guise of levelling 6 guntas of the land granted to the father of defendant No.2, to the east of the plaint schedule land. 3.3. It is contended that the defendants have no right to encroach upon the said 2 guntas of the land situated in Sy.No.963, that had been granted to the plaintiff. One Ankaiah tried to encroach 3 guntas of land and the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.134/1994 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Mandya. The matter went up to the Hon’ble High Court which had directed ADLR, Mandya, to measure the lands in Sy.No.51/1B and Sy.No.963 and demarcate the boundaries of the same through the Principal Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Mandya. Accordingly, the ADLR has measured the lands, and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 prepared a detailed report along with a sketch, and fixed the boundaries of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendants have no right over the suit schedule ‘B’ property; and they were dumping mud on, about 2 guntas of the land comprised under schedule ‘B’ of the suit. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration of title and a consequential relief of a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that Sy.Nos.51 and 51/1, situated within the town limits of Maddur, measuring 34 guntas, were not fit for agricultural purposes because the land contained rocks. Defendant No.2’s father applied for the grant of 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.51/1 for the construction of a Nursing Home and a clinic. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, sanctioned the extent of 10 guntas of the land in Sy.No.51/1 on 12.12.1966. It is contended that the Town - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 Municipal Council, Maddur assessed the property to an extent of 125 X 87 ft. It is contended that no land was available to the west of defendant No.2’s land. The plaintiff had got an extent of 4 guntas of the land granted in his favour by creating false documents. Defendant No.2 challenged the grant made in favour of the plaintiff before the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya, in R.A.No.11/2000- 01. Defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the property from defendant No.2 in two bits under the registered sale deeds dated 27.03.1999 and 29.11.1999. since the date of purchase defendant No.1 is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. 3.5. The defendant filed an additional written statement contending that durasti in the name of the plaintiff to an extent of 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.963 (old Sy.No.51/1) was challenged by defendant No.1 before the Joint Director of Land Records, Mysore in Appeal No.35/2000-01 which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2001, holding that Durasti is overlapping with the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 property of defendant No.1 and the Durasti was set aside. The plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, Mysore, preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.845/2001. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2002. Against the order of KAT, the writ petition in W.P.No.45096/2022 was filed, and the same was dismissed on 21.02.2003. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against the defendants. 3.6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues. (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner of suit schedule property having granted to him by revenue authorities? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of suit schedule property? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference? (4) Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff is claiming defendants land as alleged in written statement? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 (5) Whether the defendant proves that grant made in respect of suit schedule property is illegal and plaintiff created documents? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief sought for? (7) What order or decree? Additional Issue: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner of suit B schedule property having granted to him by revenue authorities with remaining 2 guntas? 3.7. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 45 documents as Exs.P1 to P45. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 32 documents as Exs.D1 to D32. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3, 6 and additional issue No.1 in the negative, issue No.4 and 5 in the affirmative, and issue No.7 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 09.06.2009. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.424/2000, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.91/2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Mandya. 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff has proved his ownership title over plaint B schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff has proved his lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property? (3) Whether the impugned judgment needs interference? (4) What order? 3.9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, and point No.4 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2013. The judgment dated 09.06.2009 passed in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 O.S.No.424/2000 by the trial Court was confirmed. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, has filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. K.N.Phanindra, learned senior counsel for Sri. Vaishali Hegde, for the plaintiff, and Sri. T. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the defendants. 5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that Ex.P1 is the order passed in favour of the plaintiff, i.e., the grant certificate dated 24.07.1989. The courts below have failed to consider the validity of the grant certificate dated 24.07.1989. He submits that the order of the Tahasildar dated 11.03.2002, cancelling the grant of 4 guntas in favour of the plaintiff, was stayed, and he submits that the matter is pending in the writ petition. He submits that the order of cancellation has not attained finality. Hence, without considering the said aspect, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the grant made in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.2/2008-09, and the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, confirmed the same. He submits that when the grant order made in favour of the plaintiff is cancelled, the plaintiff has no right to claim the title over the suit schedule property. Hence, both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This court, vide order dated 12.09.2013, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1) Was the Appellate Court justified in ignoring the documentary evidence Ex.P1 evidencing grant in favour of the plaintiff on which the suit claim was based merely because the same was subject matter of challenge before the revenue authorities? - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 2) Has not the Appellate Court prejudged an issue to hold that grant of certificate vide Ex.P1 has no evidentiary value, in view of the pendency of the appeal till the said order is annulled? 3) Whether the trial Court and the Appellate Court have ignored the factum of possession of the appellant, in view of the earlier determination vide Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27? 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. REG.SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW NO.1 TO 3: Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3 are interlinked with each other and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1. He deposed that the Tahsildar granted land in favour of the plaintiff vide grant order dated 24.07.1989, and a Saguvali chit was issued on 14.08.1989. Based on the Saguvali chit dated 14.08.1989, mutation was effected in the name of the plaintiff to an - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 extent of 4 guntas vide MR No.2/1973-74 dated 22.10.1973 and M.R.No.2/1991-92 dated 24.04.1991, respectively. The Government granted 6 guntas of land in favour of Dr.Ranganath, i.e., defendant No.2’s father, which is towards the east of 4 guntas of the land granted in favour of the plaintiff, and the survey number was assigned as 963. It is contended that the defendants are trying to dump the mud to our extent of 2 guntas of land comprised under schedule ‘B’ of the suit. 10. The plaintiff, to prove the ownership over the suit schedule property, produced the original grant certificate marked as Ex.P1. Exs.P2 and P3 are copies of the mutation extract, which discloses that the revenue authorities, based on the original grant certificate, entered the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. Exs.P4 to 11 are the RTC extracts, Ex.P12 is the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Ex.P13 and 14 are the photographs, Ex.P15 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P16 is the application for the grant, Ex.P17 is the memorandum, Ex.P18 is the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 Darkasthu application, Ex.P19 is the statement, Ex.P20 is the Havalu statement, Ex.P21 is the phodi sketch, Ex.P22 is the Tippani copy, Ex.P23 is the Tippani Uttar, Ex.P24 is the sketch, Ex.P25 is the challan, Ex.P26 is a certified copy of the judgment, Ex.P27 is a certified copy of a decree, Ex.P28 and 29 are the Akarband, Ex.P.30 is the Atlas Uttar, Ex.P31 is the grant certificate, Ex.P.32 is the encumbrance certificate, Exs.P33 and 34 are the two sketches, Ex.P35 is the Endorsement, Ex.P36 is the House license, Exs.P37 and 38 are the kandayam receipt, Ex.P.39 is the plan, Ex.P40 is the certified copy of order of Deputy Commissioner, Ex.P41 is the grant certificate, Ex.P42 is the Commissioner report, Ex.P43 is the copy of the writ petition, Ex.P44 is the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, and Ex.P45 is the RTC. 11. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 it was suggested that the grant certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner has set - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 aside the grant certificate and a Saguvali Chit was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The said fact was admitted by PW.1. To the suggestion that, the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was not advantageous to the plaintiff, the witness says it was advantageous. The plaintiff also examined one witness as PW.2 to prove possession over the suit schedule property. 12. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. He deposed that 6 guntas of land was granted to Dr.Ranganath, father of defendant No.2, which is towards the east of 4 guntas of land granted to the plaintiff, and assigned Sy.No.963. The defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. The cancellation of the grant order has attained finality. Hence, to prove the defence, they have produced the documents i.e., Exs.D1 to D32, and also examined one witness as DW.2. He deposed in the same line as of DW.1. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 13. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it discloses that the whole case of the plaintiff is based on Ex.P1, i.e., the grant certificate issued by the revenue authorities. Admittedly, Ex.P1 was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner in an Appeal in R.A.No.11/2000-01. Thereafter, the plaintiff, aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, approached the Deputy Commissioner. When a specific query was put to learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, “Whether the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order? He fairly concedes that the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order against the plaintiff. Upon the Assistant Commissioner canceling Ex.P.1, it has lost its evidentiary value in the civil case i.e., in a suit, and additionally during the pendency of this appeal, and the appeal was also disposed of. 14. Both the courts below considering the entire evidence on record have rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership, and title over ‘B’ schedule - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 property, and failed to establish that the suit schedule property was granted to him by the revenue authorities, and failed to prove the possession and interference, and also failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the ‘B’ schedule property, having granted to him by the revenue authorities. The defendant has proved that the plaintiff is claiming the defendant’s land as alleged in the written statement. Additionally, the defendant has proved that the grant regarding the suit schedule property is illegal, and the plaintiff has created Ex.P1. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, in R.A.No.2/2012, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 12.11.2013, i.e., during the pendency of the appeal. In view of cancellation of grant order, the grant certificate has no evidentiary value. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 16. In view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the order of cancellation of Ex.P1 has attained finality. The entire case of the plaintiff is based on Ex.P1, which is already cancelled. Hence, the plaintiff has not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and failed to prove possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The courts below have ignored the factum of possession of the plaintiff in view of earlier determination vide Ex.P26 and Ex.P27. Admittedly the suit is one for declaration and permanent injunction. When the plaintiff is not entitle for declaration question of granting consequential relief of injunction does not arise. 17. As the cancellation of Ex.P1 has attained finality, in view of the same, the plaintiff has failed to establish his ownership, title and possession over the suit schedule property. Both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24296 RSA No. 1403 of 2013 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8