- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100198 OF 2018 (DEC-) BETWEEN: 1. 2. KUMAR SANTOSH ADOPTED S/O. GURANGOUDA PATIL, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.) YALLAPPAGOUDA S/O SHIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: SAVADATTI, NOW AT R/O: DEVANUR VILLAGE, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-581113. SHANTADEVI W/O YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: SAVADATTI, NOW AT R/O: DEVANUR VILLAGE, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-581113. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. KASHAVVA W/O. RAJASHEKHARAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KUNNUR VILLAGE, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI, NOW RESIDING AT DEVANUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.G. BHAT, ADV) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.246/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDGOL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED AND DECLARATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:00:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the Judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.246/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundgol (for short ‘the Trial Court’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranks before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the cancellation of a sale deed and declaration that issuance of direction to the defendant to hand over the actual - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff and prayed for mesne profit for wrongful use of the properties by the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Smt.Gouravva W/o Guranagouda Patil of Devanur village. Smt. Gouravva had taken the plaintiff in adoption as per the usage and custom of the Hindu Community, and the deed of adoption was executed and registered on 14.09.2001. After the adoption ceremony, the adopted mother, Smt. Gouravva took the plaintiff with her. 4. All the suit schedule properties are undivided joint family properties of the adoptive family of the plaintiff. The suit properties and the other properties left behind by the deceased Gouravva, were standing in the name of Smt.Gouravva and the said properties were under the peaceful possession, vahivat and enjoyment of the deceased Smt. Gouravva, on behalf of the joint family of the plaintiff and his adoptive mother. During the lifetime of the adoptive mother of the plaintiff, she was cultivating the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 suit lands through the servants. The adoptive mother of the plaintiff, Smt.Gouravva, passed away on 06.07.2006, leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole legal heir and successor. After the demise of Smt.Gouravva, the entire properties inherited by the plaintiff, were looked after by his uncle's son in the genitive family, namely Guranagoua S/o Ninganagouda Patil, since the plaintiff was a minor. The plaintiff attained the age of majority on 09.10.2009. 5. The defendant and her late son, namely Vijaykumar, are the distant relatives of the plaintiff's adoptive mother. The defendant and her late son are permanent residents of Kunnur village, Taluka Shiggon, Dist. Haveri. For a long time, the defendant and her late son were having an evil eye on the suit schedule properties belonging to the plaintiff's adoptive family. After the death of the plaintiff's adopting mother, since the plaintiff was a minor, he had been staying with his uncle's son in the genitive family. During the second week of May 2011, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 plaintiff, while passing on that way, unexpectedly discovered that the door of the said house was open. The plaintiff further came to know that the defendant and her relatives were residing in the suit house belonging to the plaintiff by breaking open the lock. 6. It was further revealed to the plaintiff that the defendant had forcibly and illegally entered the suit property, claiming that she had purchased the suit schedule property from the deceased Gouravva. Upon enquiry, the plaintiff came to know by the defendant that the defendant and her late son had purchased the property from the deceased Gouravva. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the Police. The concerned Police informed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court, as the dispute is of a civil nature. It is contended that the plaintiff was unaware of the alleged registered sale deeds executed by Gouravva in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff requested the defendant to cancel the registered sale deeds allegedly executed by Gouravva in favour of the defendant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 However, the defendant refused to cancel the registered sale deeds. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and mesne profits. 7. The defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the husband of the late Gouravva, by name Guranagouda Patil, had more than 24 acres of land and during his lifetime, he had never adopted any person as his son. Guranagouda passed away on 05.10.1982, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Gouravva, as his only legal heir. After the death of Guranagouda, his wife, Smt.Gouravva, became the absolute owner of the suit properties. The suit properties in the hands of a woman cannot be termed as joint family property or coparcenary property, as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. On the date of filing of the suit, the scheduled properties were not standing in the name of Smt. Gouravva. It is stated that Gouravva executed registered sale deeds in favour of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 defendant and delivered possession of the suit properties to the defendant. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is adoptive son of Guranagouda Patil? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is inherited the suit schedule properties by way of successor after the death of his adoptive mother? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the sale deeds dated 17.2.2004 13.7.2004, 17.2.2004 and 17.2.2004 in respect of property bearing R.S.No.55/2 measuring 4 acres, R.S.No.17/2 measuring 4 acres, R.S.No.55/2 measuring 4 acres and Gram Panchayat No.187 measuring 5034 Sq.ft are declared as illegal, null and void and not binding on him? 4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that alleged interference by the defendant? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the vacant possession of the suit properties? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the mesne profits as prayed for? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for? 8. What order or decree? 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, and further examined four witnesses as PW-2 to PW-5. He also marked 15 documents as Exhibits P1 to P15. In rebuttal, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the defendant was examined as DW-1, along with two other witnesses, DW-2 and DW-3. The defendant marked 7 documents as Exhibits D1 to D7. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both parties and assessing verbal and documentary evidence, answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, Issues 3 to 7 in the negative and Issue No. 8 as per the final order. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide Judgment dated 16.04.2018. Aggrieved by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.246/2011, the plaintiff filed this Regular First Appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submit that the Trial Court had framed as many as eight issues. Still, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, along with four other witnesses examined as PW-2 to PW-5 and the plaintiff also produced the documents, which marked as Ex.P1 to P.15. In rebuttal, the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant was examined as DW-1 and two additional witnesses were examined as DW-2 and DW-3. The defendant produced and marked seven documents as Exs.D1 to D7. 12. He submits that, the Trial Court has not considered the evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff as well as the defendant. The Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the entire evidence placed on record, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 and he submits that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons for answering Issue Nos.1 to 7. The Judgment passed by the Trial Court is not a speaking order, and he also submits that the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.12, that is, the school transfer certificate, which discloses that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 10.10.1991 and the suit is filed on 05.11.2011. The plaintiff has filed a suit within three years after attaining the age of majority. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, which is incorrect. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to set aside the Judgment passed by the Trial Court and remit the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that, as per the recitals of Ex.P.3, the plaintiff was aged about 11 years as on the date of the registration of the adoption deed. The suit was filed in 2011. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Therefore, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 he submits that the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned Judgment. The Judgment passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learning counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the Trail Court has not assigned any reasons for answering issue Nos.1 to 7 and has consequently dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation without considering Ex.P.12.? (ii) What order or decree? 15. Point No.(i):- The plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deeds executed by Smt. Gouravva in favour of the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that Gouravva had adopted the plaintiff and the adoption ceremony was performed, and the adoption deed was registered on 14.09.2001. Gouravva died on 06.07.2006, leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole legal - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 heir, and he inherited the properties of Smt.Gouravva. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant broke open the lock and trespassed into the suit schedule properties. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant managed to get the registered sale deeds executed from Smt. Gouravva. The sale deeds executed by Smt.Gouravva are not binding on the share of the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff attained the majority on 10.10.2009. Immediately after attaining the age of majority, the plaintiff filed the suit, well within time. The plaintiff also examined four witnesses as PW-2 to PW-5 and produced documents. Ex.P1 is the death certificate of Gouravva, which discloses that Gouravva passed away on 06.07.2006. Ex.P2 is the Varasa certificate, which discloses that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Gouravva. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the registered adoption deed, which discloses that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Smt.Gouravva. Ex.P4 to P6 are the RTCs. Ex.P7 is the Khata extract. Ex.P8 to P11 are the certified copies of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 sale deeds, which disclose that Gouravva executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the defendant. Ex.P12 is the school leaving certificate of the plaintiff, which discloses that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 10.10.1991. Ex.P13 is the death certificate of the son of the defendant, i.e. Vijaykumar Patil. Ex.P14 is the certified copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.6/2007 filed by the plaintiff against the Government and the Headmaster for a declaration that the name of the plaintiff is Kumar Santosh, adopted son of Guranagouda Patil and for a mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed and it was declared that the name of the plaintiff is Kumar Santosh, adopted son of Guranagouda Patil. Ex.P15 is the certified copy of the cancellation of the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff. 16. Further, the defendant in rebuttal, the Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant, was examined as DW-1, and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and also examined two witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and marked seven documents. Ex.D1 is - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 the certified copy of the D.No.2929. Ex.D2 is the Election Voters List. Ex.D3 is the Power of Attorney executed by the defendant, authorising DW-1 to depose on behalf of the defendant. Ex.D4 is the original registered sale deed, which discloses that Gouravva executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant. Ex.D5 to D7 are the registered sale deeds executed by Gouramma in favour of the defendant. 17. From the perusal of the entire Judgment passed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court has not assigned detail reasons in answering Issue Nos.1 to 7. The Trial Court, recorded only a general expression that the plaintiff has deposed and examined two witnesses, and corroborated the evidence of PW-1, answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative. Insofar as the cancellation of the Will deed is concerned, under Issue No.2, except placing a reliance on the contents of Ex.P15, the Trial Court has not recorded any reasons and answered Issue No.2 in the affirmative. The Trial Court has not applied its mind, nor has it - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 considered the entire evidence led by the parties. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the Trial Court has not applied its mind while passing the impugned Judgment. The impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, the impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside. 18. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P12, i.e., the school leaving certificate, which discloses the plaintiff’s date of birth as 10.10.1991 and the suit was filed on 05.09.2011. From the perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1, there is no challenge by the defendant about Ex.P12. The Trial Court, without appreciating Ex.P12, and in a single sentence, held that the document Ex.P12 is not sufficient. The Trial Court committed an error in not looking into the contents of Ex.P12, which is the school leaving certificate and recorded its finding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 19. The Trial Court has not applied its mind, while passing an impugned Judgment. As rightly pointed out by - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the matter requires reconsideration by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has not complied with Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as follows: 5. Court to state its decision on each issue.—In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit. 20. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Trial Court has not properly recorded its findings on each issue. Hence, the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is not in compliance with Order XX Rule 5. Therefore, the appellant has made out a ground for remand of the matter under Order XLI Rule 23A of the CPC. As observed above, the Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the entire evidence on record. 21. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has filed an application for the amendment of the plaint in I.A.No.17. The Trial Court, except placing - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, without assigning reasons, has rejected the application. He submits that the proposed amendment is only an explanation and he has not sought any new relief. Hence, he submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application in I.A.No.17 without assigning the reasons. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to set aside the order passed on I.A.No.17 and to direct the Trial Court to reconsider the same afresh and pass an appropriate order. 22. I have perused the order passed on I.A.No.17. Though the plaintiff has raised several grounds in the application, the said grounds have not been discussed by the Trial Court. Just by referring to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1647, and in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs., reported in AIR 2008 SC - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 2139, the Trial Court has rejected the application. The Trial Court has not assigned detail reasons for rejecting I.A.No.17. The order passed on I.A.No.17 deserves to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.(i) in the affirmative. 23. Point No.(ii) :- Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.246/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundagol is set-aside. The Order passed on I.A.No.17 is also set-aside. The suit in O.S.No.246/2011 and the I.A.No.17 are restored to their original positions. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to pass the Judgment after considering the entire evidence placed on record by both parties, in - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 compliance of the Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC. The Trial Court shall also pass an appropriate order on I.A.No.17 by assigning reasons. (iv) This Court has not made any adjudication on the merits of the issue. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.09.2025, without awaiting any further notice. (vi) The office is directed to transmit the records to the Trial Court forthwith. (vii) As the matter is remanded, the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the Court Fee in accordance with Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The office is directed to refund the Court fee in favour of the plaintiff as per said provision. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9482 RFA No. 100198 of 2018 In view of the disposal of the appeal, the I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7