1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.858/2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: H. GALAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1 . SMT. PUTTANARASAMMA W/O LATE GALAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2 . SRI. G. SHANKARE GOWDA D/O LATE GALAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3 . SRI. G. NARASAPPA S/O LATE GALAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 4 . SRI. G. GOPAL S/O LATE GALAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 5 . SRI. MADADEVAIAH S/O LATE GALAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 6 . SMT. ROOPA D/O LATE G. NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R 2 7 . SRI. RAHUL N., S/O LATE G. NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 8 . SRI. RAKESH GOWDA N., S/O LATE G. NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.108/A O.B.CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE KANAKAPURA ROAD NEAR ART OF LIVING UDIPALYA POST BENGALURU-560 082. 9 . SRI. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS MUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 10 . SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.9 AND 10 ARE R/AT O.B.CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE KAGGALIPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 082. 11 . SMT. BABY W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT UTTARI VILLAGE KAGGALIPURA POST 3 UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 12 . SMT. UMA W/O LAET PUTTARAMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT HANCHINAPURA VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 109. 13 . SMT. MAHADEVI W/O LATE HANUMAIAH D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT O.B.CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE KAGGLIPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 14 . SMT. ANITHA W/O MAHESH D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT GATTIGEREPALYA VILLAGE VIDYAPEETA POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 060. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KUMAR J.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE ERACHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 4 2 . SRI NARASIMAHAIAH S/O LATE ERACHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3 . SRI NAGARAJU SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 3(a) SMT. PADMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3(b) SMT. SOWMYA D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3(c) SMT. SUMA D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 3(d) SMT. SUDHA D/O LATE NAGARAJU MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDINAN AND NATURAL MOTHER-SMT.PADMA, WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.3(a) RESPONDENTS NO.3(a) TO 3(d) ARE RESIDING AT NO.121, B.O.CHOWDAHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGAURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 082. CHANNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 4 . SMT. KAMAKKA W/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 5 5 . SRI. NARASAPPA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 6 . SRI. NAGARAJ S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 7 . SMT. JYOTHAMMA D/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 8 . SRI. DEVARAJ SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 8(a) SMT.MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 8(b) SMT. SOWMYA D/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 8(c) SMT. SUSHMA D/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.8(a) TO 8(c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.121 B.O.CHOWDAHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGAURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 082. 9 . SRI. NARAYANA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6 10 . SRI ANANDA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 11 . SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT O.B.CHOODAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.M.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3; SMT. LATHA A.R., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R11) THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.109/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.07.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH 7 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2021 passed in R.A.No.109/2015 reversing the finding of Trial Court in setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.108/2005 and granting the relief of declaration. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction that the property bearing Survey No.54/3 totally measuring 1 acre 6 guntas situated at O.B. Choodahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which is more fully described in the schedule is the ancestral property of the father of the plaintiffs Erachannappa S/o Chikkapajappa, having inherited the same from his father in pursuance of the partition in the year 1949. The father of the plaintiffs Erachannappa had mortgaged the property on 17.06.1951 in favour of one Smt. Gangamma. After redeeming the said mortgage, the 8 father of the plaintiffs again mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of one L.S.Govindaraju. However, possession of the suit schedule property is not handed over to said L.S. Govindaraju. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have executed a Gutta Kararu agreeing to give 2½ pallas of Ragi every year to the mortgagee L.S. Govindaraju. The said mortgage was redeemed by the father of the plaintiffs on 01.01.1970. 3. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that their father Erachannappa died on 26.05.1981. After the death of their father, mother of the plaintiffs Smt. Channamma and the plaintiffs have inherited the property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owners. The revenue records are also standing in the name of the plaintiffs. That being the position, the defendants Nos.1 to 4 who are the sons of late one Hanumaiah @ Motappa of O.B. Choodahalli Village, who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit 9 schedule property, filed a frivolous appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division and taking undue advantage of the pendency of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, the defendants tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs. The defendants are falsely claiming right over the suit schedule property in the said appeal. Therefore, the plaintiffs left with no option, approached the Trial Court seeking declaration declaring that the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance through their counsel and filed their detailed written statement contending that property bearing Survey No.54 originally belonged to one Chikkappajappa @ Muniyappa, the grandfather of the plaintiffs sold an extent 10 of 19 guntas in favour of father of the defendants by name Hanumaiah @ Mottappa under the registered sale deed dated 03.09.1936. It was the southern portion of the property bearing Survey No.54. The said sale deed was registered on 03.09.1937. Subsequently, according to the defendants, on 06.07.1937, the grandfather of the plaintiffs had mortgaged another extent of 1 acre 15 guntas in favour of the defendants’ father in Sy.No.54 under the registered mortgage deed. Under the registered mortgage did, the grandfather of the plaintiffs received a sum of Rs.200/- as mortgage amount and agreed to redeem the mortgage amount within 6 years from the date of mortgage and to get redeem the mortgage. Under the registered mortgage deed, the grandfather of the plaintiffs had delivered possession and put the defendants father Hanumaiah @ Motappa in possession of the suit schedule property. The father of the defendants continued in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property since 11 the same was not redeemed by the grandfather even after lapse of 61 years. Neither the grandfather of the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs got redeemed the property till date and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the survey authorities have surveyed the portion of the land which was in possession of the defendants and fixed the boundaries assigning Sub Survey No.54/3. Even though father of the defendants had purchased 9 guntas of land under the registered sale deed and got mortgage 1 acre 15 guntas under the registered mortgage deed, he was in actual possession of only 1 acre in the said property. The defendants being innocents have no knowledge of the revenue records and they have not got transferred the revenue records in their favour after the death of their father, who died in the year 1989. The plaintiffs, according to the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and there they illegally got entered their names in the revenue 12 records as per M.R.No.19/2002.2003 and made attempts to interfere with defendants’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Immediately the defendants filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2005. 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties framed the following Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are absolute owners of suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? 5. What decree or order? 13 6. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P29 and also examined 4 independent witnesses as PW2 to PW5 and closed his side. The defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D18 and closed his side. The Trial Court having considered the material available an record, answered all the Issues as negative and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that there is no any proof for redeeming the mortgage and also the possession is with the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.109/2015. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record, formulated the following Points for consideration: 14 1. Whether the plaintiffs/appellants prove that the Trial Court did not correctly appreciate the scope of controversy as per pleadings, did not appreciate the oral testimony of PW1 to 5, DW1 and documentary evidence relied by both the parties and given wrong findings to issue No.1 to 5? 2. Whether the appellant has made out reasonable grounds for interference of this Court in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court? 3. What order? 8. The Appellate Court having reassessed both material available on record comes to the conclusion that Trial Court did not correctly appreciate the scope of controversy as per pleadings i.e., oral testimony of PW1 to 5 and DW1 and also the documentary evidence and hence, it requires interference of this Court and answered both the points as affirmative and reversed the finding of Trial Court 15 in setting aside the judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the divergent finding of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 9. The main contention of the appellants’ counsel before this Court is that Sy.No.54/3 consists of 34 guntas including 6 guntas of Karab land. The counsel would vehemently contend that grandfather of the plaintiffs has sold 9 guntas of land in the year 1936 in terms of Ex.D1 in favour of father of the appellants. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the very grandfather executed a registered mortgage deed on 06.07.1937 in favour of the father of the appellants wherein mentioned as 1 acre 15 guntas of land. But the actual land in total available after getting surveyed the land is only one acre. The counsel would contend that in terms of the registered mortgage deed, possession was delivered and the appellants are in possession of the suit schedule property. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though in the registered 16 mortgage deed, time is mentioned as 6 years, but not got redeemed the property hence, suit schedule property is continued with the appellants. 10. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the suit was filed for the relief of declaration, suppressed the earlier sale deed and also the mortgage deed executed in the year 1936 and so also in the year 1937 respectively. The counsel would contend that based on the mortgage, revenue entries are entered in the name of the appellants’ father. But when they came to know that the plaintiffs have got transferred the revenue entries, immediately filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the entries and the order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner reversed the same observing that entries are subject to the result of the civil suit. Hence, suit was filed for the relief of declaration 17 and injunction. While filing the suit, the plaintiffs did not mention anything about the sale of 9 guntas of land as well as registered mortgage in favour of the appellants’ father, by suppressing the same, filed the suit and the Trial Court having considered the material available on record rightly dismissed the suit and the same is reversed by the First Appellate Court without looking into the materials available on record. 11. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the plaintiffs suppressed the sale as well as the mortgage, First Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the said fact, but committed an error. The counsel also vehemently contended that the plaintiffs mainly relies upon the document Ex.P19 wherein no doubt, it is mentioned that in order to clear the loan, the said document was executed. But no material is placed on record to show that the earlier registered mortgage was redeemed and even the document Ex.D3 clearly discloses that there was a Bhogya 18 and also contend that Exs.D4 and D5 clearly disclose the name of the Hanumaiah i.e. the appellants’ father found in the revenue records and Ex.D6 to D11 are the tax paid receipts and the same are produced before the Court. The counsel also would vehemently contend that in column Nos.9 and 12 of RTC, name of Hanumaiah i.e., the appellants’ father was mentioned. But counsel would vehemently contend that when they got changed the katha, no notice was issued to the appellants. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the witnesses were examined before the Trial Court, the very witnesses of the plaintiffs, who filed the affidavit stated that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property but categorically admitted that defendants are in possession of the property. The counsel also would vehemently contend that name of the plaintiffs entered without any order and also Writ was filed and the same was disposed of subject to the outcome of the civil suit. The fact that Ex.D1 clearly discloses that 9 19 guntas were sold and remaining land was also mortgaged in favour of the appellants’ father. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, this Court has to reanalyse the matter and reverse the finding of the First Appellate Court. 12. The counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Regular Second Appeal No.23/2021 decided on 13.06.2025 wherein this Court held that without seeking the possession, suit for declaration is not maintainable and the same is also based on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2024 SC (Civil) 978 in a case of VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR vs RAJALAKSHMI ALIAS RAJM (DEAD) THR. LRS. and this Court allowed the second appeal. 13. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2024 SC (Civil) 978 in a case of 20 VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR vs RAJALAKSHMI ALIAS RAJM (DEAD) THR. LRS. wherein Apex Court in detail discussed that simple suit for declaration is not maintainable without seeking the relief of possession. Thus, the counsel would contend that when the materials available on record are disclose that possession is with the appellants, cannot maintain a suit only for declaration. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The counsel would vehemently contend that no doubt, the document Ex.D2 registered mortgage was executed in favour of Hanumaiah and the same is only for a period of 6 years. The counsel would vehemently contend that the said mortgage was redeemed and thereafter only the Ex.P19 was executed on 25.04.1943 in favour of Nallahanumaiah. The counsel would contend that father of the appellants is a consenting witness to the said 21 document. The counsel also would vehemently contend that after redeeming the said mortgage also, document of Ex.P29 came into existence in the year 1951 and so also, one more document of mortgage was executed on 08.05.1959 in terms of Ex.P2, in favour of L.S. Govindaraju. The counsel also would contend that possession was not delivered in favour of Govindaraju, instead of that Gutta kararu was executed in terms of Ex.P3 and possession was with the plaintiffs’ father. The counsel also vehemently contended that when the appellants have partitioned the property in terms of Ex.P20, not included the suit schedule property in the said partition and there is no any explanation why the same was excluded and ought to have explained the same. However, they claim that the schedule property was given for maintenance of the parents and the same is not correct. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court in detail discussing the material on record rightly reversed the judgment of the 22 Trial Court. The counsel also would contend that no need to seek for possession since the possession vests with the plaintiffs. 15. In reply to his arguments, the counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that this Court has to take note of the fact that sale of 9 guntas of land is in the year 1936 and as well as the registered mortgage was not pleaded by the plaintiffs and suppressed the same and that itself shows that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and hence, question of granting the relief doesn’t arise. 16. Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by the counsel for the appellants as well as in keeping the substantive question of law framed by this Court, this Court has to reanalyse the material on record. Hence, this Court 23 would like to mention the substantive question of law framed by this Court as below: Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court to hold that the mortgage, that was created by the late Chikkappajappa @ Muniyappa the grandfather of the plaintiff in favour of Hanumaiah also known as Motappa, the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 3, was redeemed without there being any direct evidence in that regard merely by reading Ex.P19 a subsequent mortgage that was created by Chikkappajappa @ Muniyappa in favour of one Nalla Hanumaiah? 17. Having perused the material on record and pleadings, no dispute that originally Sy.No.54 belongs to the Chikkapajappa who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and also no dispute that earlier, he had sold 9 guntas of land in favour of Hanumaiah who is the father of the 24 appellants and there was a mortgage in favour of him in respect of 1 acre 15 guntas of land in the very same survey number and the same is also a registered mortgage dated 06.07.1937. It is rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the appellants that plaintiffs have suppressed the sale of the property of 9 guntas in favour of the father of the appellants i.e., Hanumaiah and also not pleaded about the mortgage in favour of the father of the appellants of the year 1937 in the plaint. But only claims that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and they have pleaded about the mortgage made in favour of Nalla Hanumaiah and Nanjamma and also in favour of Govindaraju. The mortgage made in favour of Govindaraju was redeemed by the father of the plaintiffs on 01.01.1970. 18. It is also contended that Erachannappa that is father of the plaintiffs died on 26.05.1981 and after his death, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule property. Hence, it is clear that there is a force in the 25 contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants that plaintiffs have suppressed the earlier sale deed as well as mortgage deed. But when the defence was taken specifically that there was a mortgage, the same has not been denied. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the respondents that the said mortgage was redeemed and hence, there was a reference in the document in Ex.P19. No doubt, on perusal of Ex.P19, there is a reference that in order to clear the loan of Hanumaiah @ Motappa, the mortgage deed at Ex.P19 was executed in favour of Nallahanumaiah and the amount is mentioned as Rs.50/- per year for a period of 4 years. No doubt, there was a reference to clear the loan of Hanumaiah @ Motappa. But no document is placed before the Court to show that the registered mortgage was redeemed which was in existence in favour of Hanumaiah @ Motappa for having paid the amount of Rs.200/- shown in the mortgage deed. 26 19. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the same was executed in favour of Nallahanumaiah and also executed other documents of mortgage in terms of Exs.P2 and P29 in favour of Nanjamma and Govindaraju, the counsel brought to notice of this Court that Gutta kararu was came into existence in terms of Ex.P3, but possession was not delivered in favour of Govindaraju and though possession was delivered in favour of Nallahanumaiah for a period of 4 years, the question of continuing the possession with the defendants does not arise. But the counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that when the witnesses are examined before the Court in order to prove the possession that is PW2 to PW5 and the very witness of the plaintiff i.e., PW4 categorically admitted that the possession of the suit schedule property is with the defendants, the same was also taken note of by the Trial Court. The law is very clear that when the registered document of mortgage was 27 executed, the same has to be redeemed and even if earlier mortgagor has refused to redeem the mortgage after giving the notice, the mortgagor has to approach the Court for redemption of mortgage. But no such material is placed before the Court to show that suit was filed for the relief of redemption of mortgage. Apart from that there is no any document before the Court to show that the same was redeemed by executing any registered document by the mortgagee. No doubt, the plaintiffs relies upon the document of Ex.P19, P2 and P29 that there are number of mortgage deeds are executed in the year 1943, 1951 and also in the year 1959. But evidencing the fact that redemption was made, nothing is placed on record. 20. It is also not in dispute that in terms of the mortgage, revenue entries were found in the name of the Hanumaiah @ Motappa that is the appellants’ father. No doubt, subsequently revenue entries are changed in the name of the plaintiffs’ father and the same was also 28 challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the same was allowed and as against the said order had approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner disposed the appeal with an observation that subject to the result of the civil suit. The plaintiffs have also not placed on record any material with regard to change of katha in their names with the consent of defendants’ father and no notice was given as contended by the appellants’ counsel and there cannot be any change of katha in favour of any persons subsequently without any basis. But no material is placed on record for change of katha in favour of the plaintiffs and there is no any order and the said fact also taken note of by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also while considering the issue involved between the parties comes to the conclusion that Ex.P3 is created only for the purpose of this case and the same is not a registered document through which the property in question was mortgaged in favour of the father of the 29 defendants and also rightly comes to the conclusion that no evidentiary value could be attached to Ex.P3 through which the plaintiffs are claiming that they got the possession of the property back from the father of the defendants. But no documentary evidence is before the Court with regard to redeeming the earlier mortgage. Hence, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot be declared as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property unless the earlier mortgage is redeemed. Even with regard to the possession also, PW4 categorically admitted that property is in possession of the defendants. No doubt, other witnesses deposed before the Court that plaintiffs are in possession of the property. Ex.D1 and D2 clearly disclose that there was a sale deed to the extent of 9 guntas of land and remaining land is concerned, the mortgage document of Ex.D2 was executed. 21. It has to be noted that revenue entries clearly disclose that the name of Hanumaiah @ Motappa is 30 appearing upto the year 1966-67. If really there was a redemption of mortgage at the time of executing the document of Ex.P19, immediately would have been entered the name of subsequent mortgager. But the same was not found. The fact is that property was mortgaged in the name of the father of the defendants in the year 1937 is not in dispute and unless, the same is redeemed, question of executing the mortgage in favour of Nanajamma, Nallahanumaiah and Govindaraju will not create any rights and ought to have redeemed the mortgage before executing the mortgage in favour of other parties but the same is not done. Merely because of couple of mortgage deeds are executed in favour of other persons, that cannot be assumed that property in question was redeemed by the grandfather of the plaintiffs from the father of the defendants. 22. It is also important to note that in terms of the document of Ex.D2, possession was given to the 31 Hanumaiah @ Motappa who is the father of the appellants but no material is placed on record for having taken the possession of the property from the father of the defendants/appellants and the possession was also delivered in terms of the registered document. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the finding of the Trial Court. No doubt, the First Appellate Court having considered the document of Ex.P19 and other document of mortgage deed i.e., Ex.P2, comes to the conclusion that subsequently there are other mortgage deeds and the same would not create any right in favour of the plaintiffs unless the earlier registered mortgage is redeemed in accordance with law. 23. Having considered the material on record and also discussion made in detail and also considering the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it appears that when the document of redemption is not available before the Court, the First Appellate Court 32 committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court only relying upon document of Ex.P19 since, in that document only reference was made that in order to clear the loan of Hanumaiah @ Motappa, he had executed a mortgage deed and thus, the approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous because there must be a document of redemption and mere there is a reference in the document of Ex.P19 that only to clear the loan and not stated that in order to clear the loan only, he had taken the money and executed the mortgage deed. This Court taken note of the fact that there is a clear admission on the part of PW4 that possession is with the defendants and unless the documents are produced before the Court evidencing the fact that katha and revenue documents are transferred after the redemption of mortgage, if any changes are made in the revenue records that cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property. under such circumstances, the First Appellate 33 Court ought not to have reversed the judgment of the Trial Court mainly considering the document of Ex.P19. Hence, I answered the substantive question of law as negative holding that the First Appellate Court is not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only based on Ex.P19 without there being any direct evidence with regard to the redeeming of the earlier mortgage deed. Hence, there is a merit in this appeal. 24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 23.04.2021 passed in R.A.No.109/2015 is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.108/2005 is confirmed. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE SN