- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NARASIMHA MURTHY, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. SHIVAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 2. MANJULA, D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. PRESENTLY BOTH ARE R/O. P-56, 3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN, C - BLOCK, GAYATRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIKKA NARASAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 2. SIDDA LINGAIAH, S/O CHIKKA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/O GOWDIHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK. 3. BORAMMA, W/O LATE SHANKARANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VIVEKANANDANAGARA, 2ND CROSS, RANGAPURA ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU. 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 matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of injunction, it is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 specifically pleaded that land in Sy.No.20/5 totally measuring 1-02 acres, Sy.No.20/3 totally measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.21/1 measuring 2-24 acres situated at Gowdihalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, which is morefully described in the schedule, originally belonged to one Chikkanna, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The said Chikkanna had acquired the same through inheritance. After his death, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 being the sons have succeeded to the above lands and were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. In between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 there was a palupatti dated 15.12.1982 and got shared the property equally and they are in possession of the property. It is further contented that one Shankaranarayana, the husband of defendant No.3 was utter stranger to this property and had no manner of right, title or interest and started interfering with possession of the plaintiff property and also created the concocted sale deed. The Deputy Tahasildar has registered a RRT and passed an order changing the katha and pahani of the entire extent of lands in the said survey numbers including the suit properties in the name of Shankaranarayana. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 preferred the appeal and the said appeal was allowed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of the plaintiff is residing at Bangalore, he used to visit the suit properties once in a week and looking after the agricultural properties trying to interfere with possession of the property of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 admitted the statement of the plaint averments and contended that there was a partition between them on 15.12.1982. The defendant No.3 appeared and filed the written statement contending that there was a sale deed in the year 1959. Chikkanna on his behalf and also on behalf of his then minor sons executed a registered sale deed in favour of Siddaiah S/o Chikkanna and hence the purchaser became the absolute owner and subsequently in turn, he sold the suit properties in favour of Narasamma W/o Doddarangaiah under a registered sale deed dated 03.08.1962 and she became the absolute owner in possession of the property. After the death of Narasamma, her only son Shankaranarayana became the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and hence, the very claim made by the plaintiff that the property is an ancestral property and the same is inherited by him is false and frivolous. 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the sale deed of the year 1959 and subsequent sale deed of the year 1962 and the property stands in the name of Shankaranarayana and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.42/2021. The First Appellate Court also is having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Points for consideration and also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 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 the judgments of both the Courts are perverse and not based on any material available on record. In a suit for permanent injunction, the Court has to look into the documents which establishe the possession of the plaintiff. The Trial Court fails to take note of the documents at Ex.P1 to P26 but erroneously taken note of the documents of ‘D’ series. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial questions of law. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record as well as the reasoning given by the Trial Court, it discloses that the Trial Court taken note of the sale made by the father of the plaintiff long back in the year 1959 and subsequent sale deed of the year 1962 made by the subsequent purchaser. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that at the time of sale, the plaintiff was a minor and the said contention cannot be accepted since the legal heirs of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 Chikkanna were minors, the same was challenged immediately and the property was transferred in the year 1959 as well as the document of Ex.D30 came into existence on 23.08.1962 and records also disclose that taking the advantage of the property stands in the name of original owner Chikkanna, got transferred the katha and also got the property partitioned among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. It has to be noted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have supported the case of the plaintiff and hence it is collusive suit. But the fact that when there was a sale in the year 1959 itself, it is very clear that the very family members of the plaintiff only sold the property. Only based on the document of change of katha in the name of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, the Court cannot grant the relief of permanent injunction when the registered document clearly reveals with regard to the handing over the possession in the year 1959 and in turn, purchaser has handed over the possession in the year 1962 and when the property got changed in the name of the plaintiff, the same was also questioned before the competent authority. When such being the case, I do not find any grounds to admit the appeal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024 and to frame any substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42