- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA, SINCE DIED BY LRS 1(A) SRI. SHANKARA S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED 34 YEARS, 1(B) SRI. SURESH S/O LATE VENKAATESHAPPA AGED 37 YEARS, 1(C) SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED 35 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KONDARAJENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI-562110. TQ. AND DIST-KOLAR. 2. SRI.SURESH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONDARAJENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI-562110 KOLAR TALUK. 3. SRI.JAGADISH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONDARAJENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI-562110 KOLAR TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 AND: SRI SRINIVAS S/O BATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONDARAJENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI-562110 KOLAR TALUK …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.N.SURESH BABU., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.119/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.322/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., KOLAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2015, passed in R.A.No.119/2013 by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kolar and the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2012 passed in O.S.No.322/2006 by the first Additional Civil Judge, Kolar. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 2. For convenience, the parties are referred based on their rankings before the trial Court. The Appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and in the family partition, the said schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the same was mutated in the name of plaintiff No.1. It is contended that the defendant is the owner of the southern boundary property and constructed stair case and bathroom by encroaching the suit schedule property towards the southern side to an extent of 33 X7 feet and 13 feet towards west. The plaintiffs requested to demolish the stair-case and also to hand over the encroached portion of the suit schedule property, but the defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 refused to demolish and hand over the possession of the encroached portion of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of title and injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The Defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the defendant is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.65, out of which 18 guntas is the ancestral properties of the defendant. About 18 years ago, defendant's father constructed a residential house with a staircase and latrine. The defendant and his father are in enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are no way concerned to the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 6. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW1, examined one witness as PW2 and marked 2 documents as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and defendant was examined as DW1 and marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D2. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW1 and marked 10 documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. The trial Court, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with cost vide judgment dated 07.09.2012. 7. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.322/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.119/2013 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kolar. The First Appellate Court, after re- assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 07.01.2015. 8. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. He submits that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiffs’ land, i.e., the suit property. He submits that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the defendant is no way concerned to the suit schedule property and the defendant has constructed a stair case in the suit schedule property by encroaching it. Hence, he submits that both Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Perused the records, considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 title and mandatory injunction. The entire suit of the plaintiffs is that they are claiming to be the absolute owners based on the revenue records. Admittedly, the revenue records are not the title deeds. The plaintiffs have not produced the title deed to establish the ownership and title over the suit schedule property. Both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and title over the suit schedule property and rightly passed the impugned judgments. 12. Hence, in view of the above discussions, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and any substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26504 RSA No. 72 of 2016 (ii) The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. (iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and the are accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26