- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2008 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS a. SRI LAKSHAMAMMA, W/O LATE SRI B M RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. b. SRI B R SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. c. SRI R MUNEGOWDA, S/O LATE SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, d. SMT SUJATHA, D/O LATE SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT BESTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TQ- 563101. 2. SRI NARAYANAPPA, S/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 3. SRI VENKATARAMAPPA, S/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SRI GANESHAPPA, W/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5. SMT THAYAMMA, W/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPA, AAGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 6. SRI ERAPPA, W/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR ALL R/AT BESTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TQ - 563101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI G A SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNEPPA, S/O SRI MUNISHAMAPPA GUNNERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT CHINNAMMA, W/O LATE MUNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PAREHOSHALLI VILLAGE, HOLURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563103. 1(b) SHRI NAGESH M, S/O LATE MUNEPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PAREHOSHALLI VILLAGE, HOLURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563103. 1(c) SHRI VENKATESH, S/O LATE MUNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PAREHOSHALLI VILLAGE, HOLURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563103. 1(d) SMT YELLAMMA, S/O LATE MUNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PAREHOSHALLI VILLAGE, HOLURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563103. (AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 18.04.2022) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRIDHAR H, AND SRI PRAVEEN J, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO D)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.3.12.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.196/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-III, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.26.10.2004 PASSED IN O.S.NO.349/98 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), KOLAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal was admitted on 31.07.2008 to answer the following substantial question of law as under: 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in denying the relief of declaration to the plaintiff on the ground 2 acres of land in Sy.No.47 has been granted in favour of the defendant?" 2. Learned counsel for the appellants and respondents jointly submit that during the pendency of this appeal, the alleged grant to the extent of 2 acres in the suit property measuring 8 acres was questioned before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has set-aside the grant said to have been made in favour of respondent in respect of 2 acres. 3. Respondent/defendant claims that he has filed writ petition before this Court assailing the said order cancelling the grant in his favour in respect of 2 acres in the suit property measuring 8 acres and that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 W.P.No.16710/2009 is pending consideration. Pendency of Writ Petition is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 4. After going through the records this Court also deems it appropriate to frame one more substantial question of law as under: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellants, to summon the original records pertaining to alleged grant in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants when the appellants filed the said application in the light of the observations made by the trial Court that the plaintiffs should have filed an application to summon the original records." 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. This Second Appeal is filed against a concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title in respect of survey No.47 measuring 8 acres in Besthenahally village, taluk - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 Kolar. Plaintiffs claimed title over the property on the basis of grant said to have been made in the year 1945. Plaintiffs have produced the certified copy of the alleged grant order. 7. Defendant has disputed plaintiffs’ claim contending that 2 acres in the very same survey number in which the plaintiffs are claiming declaration of title and injunction is granted to him in terms of the grant order for the year 1997. 8. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have examined the Tahsildar to justify their contention that there is a grant in favour of their father. The Tahsildar has been examined before the Trial Court and he has deposed that he is not aware of the grant said to have been made in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. 9. After considering the materials on record, it is noticed that the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that out of 8 acres of land for which the suit is filed, 2 acres of land is said to have been granted to the respondent. It is brought to the notice of this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 Court that the alleged grant in favour of the respondent to the extent of 2 acres is questioned by the appellants by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal is allowed and the alleged grant in favour of the respondent/ defendant is set aside. 10. The respondent/defendant has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16710/2009 challenging the order cancelling the grant of 2 acres. 11. It is also noticed that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have not produced the original records relating to the grant. The Trial Court doubted the correctness of the certified copy of the grant order. 12. Before the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs/ appellants filed an application to summon the original records relating to the grant from the office of Tahasildar. The said application is rejected by the First Appellate Court. 13. This Court is of the view that the plaintiffs/ appellants should have been given an opportunity to secure - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 original records from the office of the Tahasildar. The rejection of such an application filed by the plaintiffs/ appellants that too in the light of the observations by the Trial Court doubting the correctness of the certified copy of the grant order is unjustified. 14. In case, the document is secured from the office of the Tahasildar, or if any endorsement is issued pursuant to the application, then the document relating to grant or any endorsements have to be considered by the Court. 15. If the original documents are not available still the plaintiffs’ right to establish the grant is not completely taken away as the plaintiffs/appellants have produced certain documents which are said to be certified copies of the grant order and the First Appellate Court has to consider whether those documents are admissible in evidence or in accordance with law and has to arrive at a proper conclusion. 16. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that 2nd substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellants. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 17. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2007 in R.A.No.196/2004 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Kolar are set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court. (iv) The First Appellate Court shall issue summons to the jurisdictional Tahasildar/Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner to secure the original records pertaining to the grant in question. In case, the documents are produced, the parties shall be at liberty to lead evidence based on the said documents to substantiate their respective contention. (v) The First Appellate Court shall record the evidence to be led by the parties in this behalf and thereafter decide the appeal on merit. (vi) It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (vii) The First Appellate Court shall issue notice to the parties as it is submitted that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25610 RSA No. 477 of 2008 appellants are not in touch with the learned counsel for the appellants. 18. It is stated that this Court has passed an order of status quo in the year 2008 and the said order is in force till today and nobody seems to be aggrieved by the said order. 19. Hence, the said order shall continue till the disposal of the First Appeal. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/GVP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1