Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 69944 (KAR)

CHIKKAHONNAPPA v. NAGABUSHANA

RSA/343/2013 · 2025-09-17

Anant Ramanath Hegde

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.343 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. CHIKKAHONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1A. HONNESHAPPA, SON OF LATE CHIKKAHONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 1B. NAGARAJ, SON OF LATE CHIKKAHONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 1C. SANNAMUDDAPPA, SON OF LATE CHIKKAHONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1A TO 1C ALL RESIDING AT HONNAPURA, KOTAGARALAHALLI POST, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR - 572 112. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER 03.07.2024) 2. JANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 ARE SONS OF LATE HONNAPPA RESIDING AT HONNAPURA, KOTAGARLAHALLI POST, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIVEK B RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 AND: 1. NAGABUSHANA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAHONNAPPA, WORKING AS LECTURER AT DR. AMBEDKAR JR. COLLEGE, MADHUGIRI AND RESIDING AT NEAR LAMBANI HOSTEL, P.L.D. BANK ROAD, K.R.EXTENSION, MADHUGIRI572132 2. SMT DODDAKKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O KARIYAPPA, RESIDING AT HONNAPURA, KOTAGARLAHALLI POST, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK572112 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH H V FOR R1.,ADVOCATE, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100, R/W O-XLII, RULE-1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 14.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.178/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 07.11.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.114/2002 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR. DN.) AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is by the appellants being aggrieved by the concurrent finding in a suit for declaration and injunction. Before First Appellate Court, the relief of declaration was given up by the plaintiffs and before this Court, the appellants are only claiming decree for injunction. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants have based their claim relying on the following genealogy: 3. According to the plaintiffs, there were two brothers namely Honnappa and Nagappa. Honnappa had two sons by name Chikkahonnappa, Jannappa and according to the plaintiffs, Honnappa's brother Nagappa had a son by name Chikkahonappa and his son is Nagabhushan. Honnappa Nagappa Chikkahon nappa (Plaintiff No.1) son Jannappa (plaintiff No. 2) son Chikkahonappa son Nagabhushan (Defendant No. 1) son brothers - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 4. Plaintiffs claim that Chikkahonappa S/o Nagappa purchased the property bearing Sy.No.33/10 measuring 1.27 guntas in Kotagarlahalli Village, Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, under registered sale deed dated 13.12.1956. It is urged by the plaintiffs that though the sale deed is in the name of Chikkahonappa, in fact two sons of Honnappa namely plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in the suit are also the joint holders of the property and they were in possession of 01 acre and Chikkahonappa was in possession of 27 guntas. 5. The plaintiffs claim that Chikkahonappa died in the year 1990 and in the year 1992-93, there was a mutation in the name of Nagabhushan, the son of Chikkahonappa to the extent of 27 guntas and later plaintiff's father Honnappa died in the year 1997-98 and there was a mutation in the name of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to the extent of 01 acre. 6. Thus, the plaintiffs urge that the aforementioned mutation entries to the extent of 27 guntas in the name of Nagabhushan and 01 acre in the names of Chikkahonnappa and Jannappa would establish the fact that the property was at one point of time was joint family property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 7. The cause of action for the suit is the objection raised by Nagabhushan-defendant No.1, who objected to the mutation recording 01 acre in the names of plaintiffs. Thus, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. 8. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and disputed the relationship as alleged by the plaintiffs. It is urged by defendant No.1 that his father Chikkahonappa purchased the property in the year 1956 and he was exclusive owner of the property. After his demise in the year 1990, Nagabhushan-defendant No.1 inherited the said property exclusively. Defendant No.1 raised the contention that by taking undue advantage of similarity in the name of plaintiff No.1 and father of defendant No.1, the plaintiffs are making an untenable claim. 9. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence, concluded that the plaintiffs' plea that the property is the joint family property, acquired in the name of father of defendant No.1 is not established. It further concluded that defendant No.1's father was the exclusive owner of the property and defendant No.1 exclusively inherited property after the death of his father-Chikkahonnappa in the year 1990. The trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 disbelieved the relationship pleaded by the plaintiffs and concluded that the plaintiffs are not the cousins of defendant No.1. 10. It is noticed that the plaintiffs in the alternative have also pleaded adverse possession and claimed title through adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession is also negatived by the trial Court. 11. Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.114/2002. 12. Before First Appellate Court, plaintiffs did not press the relief of declaration of title and same was given up. Plaintiffs pressed only for a decree for injunction on the premise that they are in settled possession of the property since long and to substantiate their claim relating to settled possession, the plaintiffs relied on the entry in column No.12 of the property records, which reveal their names to the extent of 01 acre and name of defendant No.1 to the extent of 27 guntas. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 13. Though name of defendant No.1 was found in column No.9 to the entire extent of 1.27 guntas, First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence, concluded that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and dismissed the appeal. 14. First Appellate Court did not get into the question of title to the property as same was given up by plaintiffs. Though claim relating to title was given up, First Appellate Court discussed on the title and after having come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have no title, concluded that the plaintiffs are not in possession and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 15. This appeal was admitted on 25.06.2024 to answer the following substantial question of law: "When the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and consequently, restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession, having failed, in the Court, in the suit filed by the plaintiff, can be plaintiff give up the right to relief of declaration of title and maintain a suit for injunction restraining, defendant from interfering with his possession?" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 16. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants would urge that the property records since 1956 revealed the names of plaintiffs to the extent of 1 acre in column No.12 and name of father of defendant No.1 to the extent of 27 guntas in column No.12. This has happened because the property was the joint family property and the plaintiffs are not the trespassers, they are in settled possession of the property since 1956 is the submission. 17. It is his further submission that presumption arising from entry in the record of right is not rebutted and possession is very much established, the trial Court and First Appellate Court could not have refused the decree for injunction is the contention. It is urged that First Appellate Court was required to consider the settled possession of the plaintiffs and not the title as the plea relating to title was given up. Without bestowing its attention to the plea relating to the possession and the evidence relating to possession, First Appellate Court erroneously focused its attention on the question of title which was not raised before First Appellate Court and having recorded - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 a finding that the plaintiffs have not established title, erroneously dismissed the appeal is the submission. 18. Learned counsel for defendant No.1/respondent No.1 would urge that both the Courts have concurrently held that the relationship pleaded by the plaintiffs is not established and that being a pure question of fact that there is no substantial question of law will not arise. He would also submit that the plaintiffs have given up claim relating to title, as such, the only question that is required to be established is whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. Further, he submits that both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and the question relating to possession cannot be considered in appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 19. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would urge that entry column No.12 is not based on any credible material and such re-entry cannot recognise the possession of the plaintiffs. It is his contention that plaintiff No.1 has taken undue advantage of the fact that his name is similar to that of father of defendant No.1 and the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 name of plaintiff No.1 was never entered in the property record, and the name found in the property record in column No.12 is that of defendant No.1. As such, both the Courts have rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property. 20. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would also urge that the revenue entry in the names of the plaintiffs is also set aside by the Assistant Commissioner during the pendency of appeal. 21. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.s vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.1382/2022. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case the plaintiff seeks a declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction and if the title is not established, he is not entitled to consequential relief. 22. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 23. As can be noticed from the pleading before the trial Court, the plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of the property on the premise that the property was purchased when the family of the plaintiffs and father of defendant No.1 was joint. In the alternative, they also pleaded adverse possession and the trial Court negatived both pleas. Before First Appellate Court, the plea relating to title was given up. Thus, the only question that is required to be considered is whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. 24. As can be noticed from the pleadings before the trial Court, plea relating to possession was based on title and it is not a plea based on a permissible possession or a settled possession. This being the position, this Court has to consider whether the plaintiffs have produced any materials to establish possession, independent of their plea relating to title. 25. If the title deed is excluded, then the plaintiffs must establish on what basis they came in possession of property. The only basis for the plaintiffs to contend that they are in possession of the property is the entry in the record of right in column No.12. No material is placed to establish as to on what - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37135 RSA No. 343 of 2013 basis the Revenue Authorities have recorded the names of the plaintiffs in column No.12. Entry in column No.12 appears to be without any basis. 26. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the trial Court and First Appellate Court are justified in holding that the plaintiffs have not established their possession over the property. 27. Since the plaintiffs have given up their claim relating to title over the property, they cannot contend that they are joint family members and first defendant's father purchased the property on behalf of the plaintiffs. 28. Under these circumstances, the substantial question of law is to be answered against the appellants and in favour of respondent No.1. 29. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13...