- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50246 RSA No. 394 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.394 OF 2025 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.V. KRISHNA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O HOSAKANNAMBADI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA @ BANUMATHI, W/O LATE RAMEGOWD, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O HOSAKANNAMBADI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571434. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O THYVANAPPA, DEAD BY HER LR. SRI. K.T. RAMASWAMY, R/O HOSAKANNAMBADI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50246 RSA No. 394 of 2025 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.11.2024. PASSED IN R.A.NO.59/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2021. PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The Trial Court, when the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, though held that the plaintiff has proved the Will dated 13.08.1993, but comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and without seeking the relief of possession, seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, the suit is not maintainable as contended by the defendants in the written statement. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court. Before the First Appellate Court also, the appellant not sought for any relief of possession. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50246 RSA No. 394 of 2025 the judgment of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to such a conclusion. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to file an application. When in both the Courts, no such application is filed and sought for any relief of possession, the question of giving such a permission in the second appeal does not arise. However, liberty is given to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate Court. There is no merit in the second appeal to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court or to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 3. With the liberty, the second appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40