- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37674 RSA No. 1256 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1256 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVANANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 2. SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 3. SMT SUSHEELA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 4. SMT JAYA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, THE APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT DOOR NO.26, KUMBARAKOPPALU, MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, MYSURU - 570001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI D.C.GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37674 RSA No. 1256 of 2024 2. SRI SWAMY S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SRI RAJU S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SRI LINGARAJU S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5. SRI LOKESH S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.388, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, M BLOCK, SUBHASH NAGARA, KUMBARA KOPPALU, MYSURU - 570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM PHADKE, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.504/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.615/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37674 RSA No. 1256 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the respondents files a memo with copy of the sale deed dated 15.03.1949. 2. A memo came to be filed by the learned counsel for the appellants on 04.08.2025 signed by the appellants as well as their counsel, which reads as under: “In the above appeal, the appellants herein have challenged the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No. 504/2019 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, dated 10.04.2024 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.615/2012 dated 06.07.2019 on the file of the IV Addl. I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore. It is submitted that both the courts below in its judgment; by relying upon the finding given by the Hon’ble Court in O.S.No.288/1997 stating that Smt.Dodda Thayamma (grand mother of the appellants) had executed the registered sale deed in favour of Boregowda dated 15.03.1949 dismissed the suit filed by the mother of the appellants seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.206/7 of Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, measuring 20 guntas decreed the suit as prayed. But in the said suit the respondent/ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37674 RSA No. 1256 of 2024 plaintiff herein who was the defendant had failed to produce the sale deed dated 15.03.1949. Such being the case, in the present suit filed by the respondent seeking grant of permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.204/8 of Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, measuring 20 guntas though the respondent/plaintiff has relied upon the sale deed dated 15.03.1949 in the pleading has failed to furnish the same. Under these circumstances, in order to have full and final adjudication of the dispute between the parties in respect of Sy.No.204/8 of Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, measuring 20 guntas and considering the fact that in both the suits i.e., O.S.No. 288/1997 and O.S.No.615/2012 the parties therein did not produce the title deed, the appellants herein seek permission of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the above appeal with a liberty to file a comprehensive suit seeking declaration and consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Sri Vikram Phadke, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents are in possession of the suit property right from the year 1949 onwards by virtue of registered sale deed. Therefore, suit for injunction filed by the respondents being decreed, has to be upheld. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37674 RSA No. 1256 of 2024 4. The appeal is sought to be withdrawn by the appellants who are the defendants before the Trial Court with permission to file appropriate suit to establish their title to the suit property. 5. Sri Vikram Phadke, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that if any such suit is filed by the defendants/ appellants in this appeal, liberty may be reserved to the parties for canvassing all favourable points and the appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a comprehensive suit. 6. Taking note of the rival submissions of the parties, placing the memo on record, appeal can be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. (ii) Both the parties are at liberty to canvass all relevant points in their favour in the intended suit and Trial Court shall dispose of the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37674 RSA No. 1256 of 2024 strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the opinion expressed in the impugned judgments. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61