1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO R.S.A. NO.1393 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SHRI RAJANNA S/O. AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOLANAHALLI, CHIKKASARANGI POST, GULURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572118. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARVIND .M. NEGLUR AND SRI. PRAKASH .A., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHRI HANUMANTHAIAH, S/O. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SHRI C.N. RANGAPPA S/O. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SHRI. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O. ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ALL RESIDENTS OF CHIKKASARAGI POST GULURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 118 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3 SRI. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2.) 2 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.97/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.720/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT The present Regular Second Appeal filed against the judgment dated 25.03.2019 and decree dated 02.04.2019, in R.A.No.97/2017, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (‘the lower appellate Court’ for short) and the judgment dated 01.08.2017 and decree dated 02.04.2019, in 720/2008, passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-I at Tumakuru (‘the trial Court’ for short). 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff/appellant before the Courts below and the respondents herein are the defendants 3 No.1, 2 and 4 before the trial Court and the respondents before the lower appellate Court. 3. For convenience of reference the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- It is the case of the plaintiff that he instituted the suit on 20.08.2008 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property being agricultural land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.16 of Cholenahalli, Guluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. It is his specific case that the suit schedule property along with other properties had been purchased by one Chikka Range Godwa @ Chikka Rangaiah, son of Range Gowda, under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.07.1932, registered on 24.08.1932, and that the said Chikka Range Gowda continued in possession thereof till his death. It is further contended that the said Chikka Range Gowda had three sons viz., Range Gowda, Kumaiah and Ajjappa, who effected an oral partition, and in the said partition the suit schedule property fell to the share of Ajjappa who is the father of the plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff, along with his two brothers, Chikka Rangaiah and Ramaiah, had common 4 interest in the said property and that on the authority of his brothers, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.720/2008. 5. It is further alleged that taking undue advantage of the plaintiff being away in Government service and of the ignorance and illiteracy of his brothers, the defendants and the father of defendant No.4 illegally got their names entered in the RTC records and in collusion with the survey authorities caused podi of Sy.No.16 into Sy.Nos.16/1, 16/2 and 16/3, and thereafter attempted to alienate the same and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 6. Per contra, defendant No.2, who has filed Written Statement, has denied the plaint averments and has set up a rival claim by contending that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Hanumanthaiah, who had three sons, namely Rangaih, Channe Gowda and Anjjappa @ Hanumanthaiah. It is contended that after the death of their father, the three sons succeeded to the property, and that Rangaih and Channe Gowda died issueless, as a result of which Anjjappa @ Hanumanthaiah continued in possession till his death. 5 7. It is their further case that subsequent to his death, his four sons viz., Anjappa @ Hanumanthaiah, Chikka Hanumanthaiah and Nagappa partitioned the properties including the suit schedule property, which was later poded into Sy.Nos.16/1, 16/2 and 16/3. It is further stated that 12 guntas in Sy.No.16/1 was in possession of Chikka Hanumanthaiah and after his death with his wife Rangamma and thereafter with defendant No.3, that 10 guntas in Sy.No.16/2 was in possession of Nagappa and after his death with defendant No.1, and that 7 guntas in Sy.No.16/3 was in possession of Anjinappa @ Hanumanthaiah and after his death with defendant No.4. 8. The trial Court based on the pleadings, framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim? 4. What Order or Decree? 6 9. In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, other three witnesses as PWs2 to PW4 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to Ex. P6. On the other hand, in order to disprove the case of the plaintiff defendants No. 1 and 3 examined themselves as DW1 and DW3 respectively, another witness as DW2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to Ex.D39. 10. The trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held as under: (a) The plaintiff relied on Ex.P-1, the sale deed dated 29.07.1932 executed by Ranga S/o Rangegowda in favour of Chikkarangegowda, his grandfather, and contended that the suit schedule property fell to the share of his father Anjjappa in an oral partition. He produced RTC extracts and examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 to establish possession. However, it is significant that no documentary evidence has been produced to show that Ranga himself had valid title or that Chikkarangegowda’s name was ever entered in the revenue records pursuant to Ex.P-1. The oral testimony of PWs. 2 to 4 is nothing but a repetition of the version of PW.1 and is insufficient in the absence of supporting records. 7 (b) On the contrary, the defendants produced Ex.D-1 genealogy, Ex.D-2 mutation entry, and Ex.D-3 phodi sketch to show their possession and inheritance. The RTC extracts from 1968 onwards consistently reflect the names of the defendants or their family members, and no material has been elicited in the cross-examination of DWs.1 to 3 to dislodge their claim. The long- standing revenue entries in favour of the defendants attract the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and the plaintiff has failed to rebut the said presumption. (c) It is further observed that though the grandfather of the plaintiff may have purchased the property under Ex.P-1, neither he nor his successors took steps to have the property mutated in their names for nearly seven decades. In contrary, the defendants have continued to be in possession with their names reflected in the RTCs. The pendency of proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner against phodi and mutation entries does not assist the plaintiff in proving possession as on the date of the suit. Mere suggestion of changes in the schedule boundaries during cross-examination of the defendants’ witnesses also does not establish plaintiff’s possession. 8 (d) In a suit for injunction, possession as on the date of filing of the suit must be established. On overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that both parties have set up rival claims, but the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession. The defendants’ long-standing entries in revenue records carry a presumption of correctness, and the plaintiff’s claim under Ex.P-1 does not, by itself, prove possession. (e) It is also observed that the plaintiff had also failed to prove the possession and not even furnished the necessary particulars about the interference by the defendants. Hence Trial Court pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. 11. The lower Appellate Court, having considered the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, upheld the same and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 12. Assailing the said Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.97/2017. The lower appellate Court has framed following issues for consideration:- (i) Whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out sufficient reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court? 9 (ii) What Order? 13. The lower appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held as under:- The trial court, on elaborate appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly held that the presumption is in favour of the defendants, as the documents produced by them prima facie establish that they are in possession of the suit property bearing Sy.No.16, which was subsequently phoded as Sy.Nos.16/2 and 16/3, and under such circumstances, there is no scope to interfere with the said finding. The contention of the appellant/plaintiff that title follows possession and that mere non- production of revenue documents cannot lead to a finding that the plaintiff is not in possession, was held to be unsustainable, as in a suit for bare injunction the determining factor is actual possession. Since the plaintiff failed to establish possession over the property as on the date of the suit, he is not entitled to the relief sought, and therefore, failed to make out sufficient grounds to assail the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that despite the production and marking of Ex.P1 Sale Deed dated 10 29.07.1932 registered on 24.08.1932, under which the plaintiff’s grandfather had purchased and taken possession of the property. It is urged that between the Sale Deed and RTC entries, the Sale Deed prevails, and the Courts below erred in relying upon RTCs standing in the names of the defendants’ family from 1968 onwards without enquiring into their basis, as the defendants have no title deed in their favour. It is further contended that the Courts failed to apply the settled principle that possession follows title, and erred in placing reliance on revenue entries which are prima facie proof, while ignoring the registered Sale Deed. The appellant further submits that under Sections 8, 55(f) and 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, possession is deemed to be delivered to the vendee upon execution of a sale deed, irrespective of an express recital. 15. It is further urged that in a suit for perpetual injunction, title is not a relevant factor, but both Courts below incorrectly examined the plaintiff’s title and faulted him for ignorance of the title of his predecessor’s vendor after a lapse of 90 years. It is submitted that in terms of the proviso to Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the obligation to effect necessary revenue entries lies with the State and not with the 11 parties. The appellant further contends that the marking of the Sale Deed amounts to rebuttal of the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and therefore, reliance on RTC entries by the Courts below was erroneous. Thus, the impugned Judgments and Decrees are illegal and unsustainable in law. 16. It is also submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court: I. In order to prove possession of immovable property by the Purchaser under a registered Sale Deed whether it is required to show necessary recital in the Sale Deed or Sections 8, 55(f) and Sec. 55 (6) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act make necessary presumptions of handing over possession? II. Whether a Purchaser of an immovable property under a registered Sale Deed is required to make efforts to change entry in RTC or second proviso to Sec. 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act exempts Purchaser from such requirement? 12 III. Whether in law it is required of an owner of an immoveable property to know the title of the Vendor of his predecessor after a lapse of about 80 years? IV. Whether an entry in RTC takes precedence over the recital in the Registered Sale Deed? V. Whether production and marking of registered Sale Deed rebuts presumption under Sec.133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act? 17. On hearing submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record and judgment of the trial Court, lower appellate Court and evidence on record of PW-1 to PW-4, DW-1 to DW-3 and documents marked as exhibits on behalf of both the parties i.e., Ex.P1 to P6 and Ex.D1 to D39, it clearly reveals that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and plaintiff was not in possession of the same at the time of the filing of the suit for considering the same as suit for bare injunction. 18. On hearing the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, it appears that at the outset, it has to be noticed that this being a second appeal, it is only substantial question of law 13 which gives raise for this Court to clutch the jurisdiction and answer the said question of law as otherwise, this Court would lack jurisdiction to entertain second appeal. 19. As could be seen from the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, are observed that the plaintiff miserably failed to substantiate his title and possession of the suit schedule property relying on the document which is in Ex.P1, shows that grandfather of the plaintiff had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.16 of Cholenahally which is suit schedule property for the year pertaining to the year 1932 except that no document was shown for his possession at the time of filing the suit. Per contra, plaintiff filed some revenue documents which shows that the name of defendants is mentioned. 20. Further, it is observed that the documents filed by the defendants which are marked as ExD-1 to Ex.D-39, clearly shows that the property was standing in the name of the defendants No.1 to 4 and the property bearing Sy.No.16 has been sub- phoded as Sy.No. 16/1, 16/2 and 16/3 and the same standing in the name of the defendants and at the same time the other documents i.e., khata registers, pass books and tax receipts 14 which are marked as Exhibits on behalf of the defendants are shown in the name of defendants. Further, the evidence of the defendants also clearly establishes their title and possession over the suit schedule property since the date of the filing of the suit itself and oral evidence adduced by the PW-1 to PW-4 and the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff would not help to show the possession as on the date of filing of the suit. 21. Therefore, both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. In view of the above circumstances, it is observed that the substantial question of law raised by the appellant in the present appeal which are relating to his facts of the case only not on the legal principles. 22. Even assuming that the plaintiff is having title over the suit schedule property by relying Ex.P1, he failed to establish his claim that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, is not entitled to the relief of injunction. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for bare injunction not for any declaration of the title over the suit schedule property as if the plaintiff/appellant raising substantial question of law is not related to a suit for injunction. 15 The substantial question of law is involved with regard to the declaration of the title and recovery of possession. Hence, in view of the same, the liberty is given to the appellant to file the separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal lacks merit and no merit to interfere with the findings of the both Courts, except granting liberty to the plaintiff to approach the proper fora for redressal of the title dispute between the parties, in respect of the suit schedule property, if so advised. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-VS