- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39865 RSA No. 413 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NANJUNDA RAO S/O LATE B. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDA RAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE NAJUNDA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI. MURALIDHAR RAO S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL APPELLANTS ARE AT GANGAWARA VILLAGE GOWDETI POST, KASABA HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU-561202. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DHRUVA KUMARA D.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O LATE SHANKANRAPPA DEAD BY LRS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39865 RSA No. 413 of 2021 1. SMT. PURSHPAMMA W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAPPA 2. SRI RANGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAPPA 3. SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY AGED MAJOR S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAPPA ALL ARE RESIDENT OF DOMMATHAMARI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU-561202. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R1 & R3 HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 R2 IS CALLED OUT AND ABSENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.48/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.408/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39865 RSA No. 413 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court. The main contention of the appellants’ counsel in this second appeal is that the Appellate Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiff is the lawful owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and also not justified in canceling the rights granted to the defendant under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant in toto. Hence, matter requires to be admitted and the substantive question of law to be framed. 3. Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents. The plaintiff/ respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.408/2013 wherein he has sought for the relief of declaration and injunction. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39865 RSA No. 413 of 2021 Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence particularly when the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration based on the issuance of grant certificate dated 02.02.1985 and mutation has been accepted in his favour and also he has paid the land revenue and other taxes to the said land regularly and cultivating the same and the said order was also challenged before the Assistant Commissioner in RA-(A)- 21/86-87 dated 07.12.1988 and the Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the said appeal stating that defendant had no right and the plaintiff had obtained the suit schedule property by following the due procedure and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.1988 and confirmed the grant made by the Tahasildar in favour of the plaintiff. However, counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the same was remanded to the Tahasildar but, counsel appearing for the appellants also read the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Having perused the order of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39865 RSA No. 413 of 2021 the Assistant Commissioner, it is very clear that the grant made in favour of the plaintiff was upheld and confirmed the same and only in respect of the claim made by the defendant is concerned, directed the Tahasildar to look into the matter. When such being the case, the counsel argued that matter was remanded by setting aside the order of grant cannot be accepted and all the revenue records stands in the name of the plaintiff and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court i.e., grant certificate, certified copy of the order of Assistant Commissioner, certified copy of the RTC, M.R, certified copy of sketch, certified copy of the application given to the Tahasildar, copy of the legal notice dated 18.08.2012, certified copy of RTC, tax paid receipt and RTC. All Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 clearly discloses that land was granted in favour of the plaintiff and the same was also confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order at Ex.P.2. When such material is placed before the Court and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.9 and so also the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39865 RSA No. 413 of 2021 contention of the defendant in paragraph No.10. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence particularly in paragraph No.17, reason has been assigned that grant was made in favour of the plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and also taken note of Ex.P.8 wherein a tampering was made substituting the name of the defendant and all these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and considering the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the contentions raised in the appeal, particularly even taken note of the appellants’ contention in paragraph Nos.29 to 32 comes to the conclusion that Trial Court not committed any error and considering the grant as well as confirmation made by the Assistant Commissioner comes to the conclusion that Trial Court rightly held that plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and plaintiff is in possession of the property in terms of the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39865 RSA No. 413 of 2021 When such being the case and when the very grant made in favour of the plaintiff was challenged by the appellant and the same was dismissed upholding the grant made in favour of the plaintiff by the Assistant Commissioner, the very contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants that both the Courts have committed an error cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any substantive question of law to admit and frame the same. Both the Courts have taken note of both question law and question of fact while considering the material on record. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit and frame substantive question of law. 4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER Second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21