- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100650 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. GOURAMMA W/O. GIDDAPPA KENGANNANAVAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. GOURAMMA W/O. LATE SHIVAPPA KENGANNANAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. SHRUTI D/O. SHIVAPPA KENGANNANAVAR AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4.. BEERESH S/O. LATE SHIVAPPA KENGANNANAVAR AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. ANANDAPPA S/O. GIDDAPPA KENGANNANAVAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. MANJAPPA S/O. GIDDAPPA KENGANNAVAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 7. NAGARAJAPPA S/O. GIDDAPPA KENGANNANAVAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.16 12:36:54 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 8. SHIVANAGAMMA W/O. THIRUKAPPA AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE ALL ARE R/O. HALLUR VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJAMMA W/O. NARASAPPA AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. GEETHA W/O. KUMAR T. K. AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE 3. NAGARAJ S/O. NARASAPPA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. NARASAPPA AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. DURGIGUDI EXTENT, HONNALI TOWN, TQ and DIST: DAVANGERI. 577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4; R2 - SERVED) -------- THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., COURT HIREKERUR IN R.A.NO.9/2014 DATED 18.02.2015 AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR IN O.S.NO.101/2013 DATED 21.12.2013 AS NULL AND VOID. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2015 in R.A.No.9/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short “the First Appellate Court”) confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 in O.S.No.101/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction in respect of the subject matter of the land in question against the defendants stating that, as per the registered partition deed dated 04.12.1996 between the father of plaintiff No.2 to 4 and husband of the plaintiff No.1-Sri.Narasappa with the father of defendant No.5 to 8 and husband of defendant No.1- Sri.Gadigeppa Siddappa Keggannavar and therefore, as the partition had taken place as per the registered partition deed, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 despite the said fact the defendants are interfering with the right of the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.101/2013 before the Trial Court. 3.1. The defendants entered appearance before the Trial Court, however have not filed written statement and contested the matter by adducing evidence. The Trial Court, based on the evidence of PW1 and the documents produced at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, by its judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed R.A.No.9/2014 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18.02.2015 dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.101/2013. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants. 4. The appellants have also filed I.A.No.1/2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking permission to produce certain documents - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 and same was opposed by the respondents herein by filing objection to I.A.No.1/2025. 5. I have heard Sri. Dinesh M Kulakarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. N. R. Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, 3 and 4. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that as the suit came to be decreed on oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and no fair opportunity has been extended to the defendants therein and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that though the registered partition deed has been effected, however certain properties have been exchanged by the parties, which is the subsequent event and same has to be considered in the light of the finding recorded by both the Courts below. Accordingly, he further sought for interference of this Court solely on the ground that, no suit was filed during the lifetime of Narasappa or the father of the contesting defendants and the suit is filed during 2013 relying upon the registered partition deed said to have been executed during - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 1996 and therefore, the suit itself is barred by limitation and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. He also refers to the documents annexed to the application in I.A.No.1/2025 to substantiate his arguments. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. N. R. Kuppelur, appearing for the respondent No.1, 3 and 4 submitted that since the entire case revolves upon Ex.P1-registered partition deed effected between the father of the plaintiffs as well as defendants and therefore, sought to justify the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. He also submitted that the documents sought to be produced by the appellants herein vide application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is with regard to revenue documents, which cannot enure to the benefit of the defendants and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the said application. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, it would indicate that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the relationship. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court, it would - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 indicate that the registered partition deed was effected on 04.12.1996 in respect of the subject matter of the land in question and therefore, since the said document is a registered document, which is right-in-rem and therefore, since the said partition deed referred to at Ex.P1 has not been cancelled yet as on today, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper and same has been considered by the First Appellate Court in the right perspective and accordingly, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 9. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit is barred by limitation, having taken note of the paragraph 6 of the plaint, it makes clear that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 12.02.2013 when the defendants tried to interfere with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property denying their title over the suit property and therefore, the suit is filed within time. Paragraph 6 of the plaint is reproduced, which reads as under: “6. The cause of action for the suit arose on 12.02.2013 when the defendants tried to interfere - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 in plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by denying plaintiff title over the suit schedule property at Shankaranahalli M. D. village, which comes will within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The plaintiffs have not filed any other suit for the same relief either before this Hon’ble Court or any other Courts.” 10. Insofar as contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that a fair opportunity has not been extended to the defendants, however taking into account that the defendant No.1 to 8 had appeared before the Trial Court, however were not diligent in prosecuting the case by not only in filing the written statement but also producing the relevant documents to substantiate their right over the property in question. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, both the Courts below have taken note of the factual aspects on record and have rightly decreed the suit based on Ex.P1, which cannot be interfered with in this appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC. 11. Having taken note of the averments made in I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the appellants under Order XLI Rule 27 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:552 RSA No. 100650 of 2015 of CPC is concerned, the documents sought to be produced are only revenue records and same would not enure to the benefit of the appellants/defendants to substantiate their right over the property in question in view of the registered partition deed produced at Ex.P1 in the suit. Hence, I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself as the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law. 12. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22