- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1316 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SONNAPPA S/O LATE VASANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SMT. CHOWDAMMA, W/O LATE VASANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 4. SRI. KADIRAPPA, S/O LATE VASANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEAR, ALL ARE R/AT DALASAGERE VILLAGE, NELAVAGILU-POST, NANDAGUDI-HOBLI, HOSAKOTE-TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562122 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA, DEAD BY HER LRS, SRI. NARAYANASWAMI, DEAD BY HIS LRS, SRI. CHETHAN, S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. SRI. SRIKANTH, S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 4. SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 6. SMT. RATHNAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 7. SRI. SURESH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 8. SRI. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT DALASAGERE VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 NELAVAGILU-POST, NANDAGUDI-HOBLI, HOSAKOTE-TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562122. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.209/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing to the appellants. 3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration to declare that sale deed dated 21.08.1970 executed in favour of husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 as null and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 void as well as registered sale deed dated 19.02.1970 executed in favour of defendant No.1. It is contended that the mother had acquired the suit schedule property under Inam Abolition Act by issuing an endorsement in favour of their mother late Muniyamma. It is also contended that their mother Muniyamma mortgaged the suit schedule property to one Krishnappa, the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant Nos.3 to 8 and vendor of defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Taking advantage of illiteracy of their mother Muniyamma, the said Krishnappa by misrepresenting, played fraud and coercion, instead of mortgaged deed obtained the sale deed. It is also contended that they are not aware of the same. Subsequently, the death of their mother, they approached the revenue authorities for changing the khatha. Then, they came to know that there was a sale deed, thus, there was a fraud and coercion. Hence, they are entitled for the relief of declaration. 4. In response to the suit summons, defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor for a valuable sale consideration under registered sale - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 dated 19.02.1971 and from the date of purchase, they are in possession of the suit schedule property. 5. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved that it was a mortgage transaction and not the sale transaction and considering material on record, comes to the conclusion that it was a sale transaction. The sale was taken place in the year 1971 itself. Not only sale was taken place in the year 1971, earlier itself also, sale was made in favour of Krishnappa and in turn, Krishnappa sold the same. The suit is filed belatedly and same is barred by limitation. Thus, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the documentary evidence available on record prevails over the oral evidence and oral evidence also not proves that there was a fraud and misrepresentation and there is no any material proof of fraud and misrepresentation. Hence, comes to the conclusion that the case of defendants probabilize than the case of the plaintiffs. In paragraph 23, the Trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 comes to the conclusion that sale transaction was taken place in 1970 as well as 1971 and document of Ex.P4 and P5 are remained unchallenged and already acted upon in terms of the sale deed and all revenue records are also stands in the name of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs have not made out any case and answered the Point Nos.1 to 3 as negative and Issue No.4 as affirmative and dismissed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.209/2019. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points and having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered Point Nos.1 and 5 as affirmative and Point Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 as negative in coming to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court held that in order to comes to the conclusion that it was only a mortgage deed and not the sale deed, nothing is placed on record. The First Appellate Court made an observation that during the lifetime of Muniyamma, the sale was not challenged and only these plaintiffs are challenged the same. There is no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 evidence to show that Muniyamma only mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of one Krishnappa. The contention that plaintiffs came to know the sale only in 2007 when they have approached the revenue authorities and the same cannot be accepted since they have not produced any material on record and even death certificate of said Muniyamma. Muniyamma has not challenged the alleged sale deed during her lifetime and plaintiffs have not specifically pleaded that why there was a delay in challenging the sale deed. Considering all these materials, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not taken any immediate steps to challenge the said transaction which was made in favour of Krishnappa and there is an inordinate delay in filing the suit. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal is that both the Courts failed to appreciate the material on record and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 committed an error in coming to the conclusion that sale deed at Ex.P4 and P5 are with regard to the sale transaction and not any mortgaged transaction between Muniyamma and Krishnappa and all the revenue records are also transferred in the name of the purchaser. The counsel further contend that sale deeds have been created in respect of third parties. In appreciation of evidence upholding the case is contrary to the evidence available on record. The counsel contend that both the Courts are not justified in dismissing the suit and confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the very contention of the plaintiffs that Muniyamma had executed the mortgage deed and not the sale deed. It has to be noted that the sale deed is produced before the Court at Ex.P4 and in turn, property was sold in favour of defendants in terms of Ex.P5 and these sale deeds are dated 21.08.1970 and 19.02.1971 and M.R. was changed in the year 1970-71 itself in M.R. No. 2249/1970-71 and M.R. No. 1743/1970-71. The very contention of the plaintiffs that sale - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 deeds are created, but in order to prove the same, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that when the mother Muniyamma sold the property long back, the same was not challenged by her during her lifetime. The plaintiffs even not produced the death certificate of Muniyamma when she passed away. The only reason assigned with regard to the limitation is concerned, subsequent to the death of Muniyamma, when they approached the revenue authorities, they came to know about the sale deed but in order to prove the factum of fraud and misrepresentation, nothing is placed on record. When there was a sale took place in the year 1970 and 1971, the suit is filed in 2008 i.e., after almost 38 years and the pleading that they are not aware of the said sale deed and the said contention cannot be accepted since all revenue entries entered in the name of the subsequent purchasers immediately after the sale and Ex.P6 and P7 also discloses the year of sale i.e., 1970 and 1971. Hence, both the Courts have taken note of that suit is filed belatedly i.e., almost after 38 years and no sufficient reasons are assigned for the same and in order to prove the factum of fraud and misrepresentation also, nothing is placed on record. When such finding is given by the Trial Court and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49677 RSA No. 1316 of 2025 the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC since there is no any perversity in the finding. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN