- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P CHANNEGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O ANKANAPALYA VILLAGE, HAMLET OF MALLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 127. 2. SRI. T GANGAIAH S/O LATE TJAGADAIAHAGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O ANKANAPALYA VILLAGE, HAMLET OF MALLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 127. 3. SRI. T MARAIAH S/O LATE THAGADAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O ANKANAPALYA VILLAGE, HAMLET OF MALLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 127. 4. SRI. T NANJAIAH S/O LATE THAGADAIAH AGED ABOUT 63YEARS, R/O ANKANAPALYA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 HAMLET OF MALLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 127. 5. SRI. T CHANNAIAH S/O LATE THAGADAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O ANKANAPALYA VILLAGE, HAMLET OF MALLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 127. 6. SRI. T. YASHODAMMA W/O SRI NARAYANAPPA D/O LATE THAGADAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O KAMAKSHIPALYA BANGALORE - 560 079. 7. SRI. T NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE THAGADAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O ANKANAPALYA VILLAGE, HAMLET OF MALLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 127 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O CHANDRADHARA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KANDENAHALLI VILLAGE, HAMLET OF GIRIJAPURA VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 127. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2017 PASSED IN R.A. NO.81/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE C/C I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.323/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MAGADI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2017 in R.A.No.81/2015 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (herein after referred to as 'First Appellate Court), dismissing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2015 in O.S.No.323/2014 (old No.30/2011) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Magadi (herein after referred to as 'Trial Court'), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties is referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the grandsons and great-grandsons of Channegowda @ Channaiah. Channegowda @ Channaiah was the original propositor of the family and had immobile property bearing Survey No.28/1 situated at Mallur village measuring 9 acres 17 guntas. It is also stated in the plaint that the said Channegowda @ Channaiah had purchased the land bearing Survey No.48, measuring 7 acres 2 guntas as per the registered sale deed dated 14.07.1916, from one Muddamallappa. It is also stated that the said Channegowda @ Channaiah had purchased the land bearing Survey No.48, measuring 3 acres 31 guntas, as per the registered sale deed dated 15.02.1921 from one Narasimhaiah and Gopalarao. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the said Channegowda @ Channaiah was in possession of the properties to an extent of 10 acres 33 guntas. It is further stated that the revenue authorities have changed the survey number of the land in question. It is also stated in the plaint that the said Channegowda @ Channaiah had three sons, namely, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 Thagadaiah @ Kariyanna, Puttamaraiah and Muddaiah @ Yalavaiah. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Puttamaraiah predeceased his father about 65 years back. The said Puttamaraiah died, leaving behind his wife, Byramma and two sons, namely, Thagadaiah and P.Channegowda. After the death of Puttamaraiah, his wife and sons succeeded to the suit property, along with other joint family properties. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that Byramma died long ago. Channegowda @ Channaiah, the father, died thereafter. Muddaiah @ Yalavaiah died on 08.02.1978, leaving behind his wife, Revamma. Muddaiah @ Yalavaiah and Revamma had no issues. Thagadaiah @ Kariyanna died on 18.12.1979 and the said Thagadaiah @ Kariyanna had no issues. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there is no division of properties by the plaintiffs and the defendants in respect of the land belonging to the original propositor, Channegowda @ Channaiah. It is also stated in the plaint that the revenue entries have been changed as per IHC No.5/1980-81 and the mutation has been effected as per MR No.18/1996-97. It is further stated that the appeal has been preferred before the Assistant Commissioner in RA.No.638/2007-08 and the matter was remanded to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 Tahasildar to consider the case of the plaintiffs in accordance with law. It is the grievance of the plaintiffs that the Revamma was aged about 101 years at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 10.01.2008 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the said Revamma was illiterate and had no worldly knowledge and therefore the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant got the sale deed dated 10.01.2008 fraudulently and therefore the petitioners have filed O.S.No.323/2014 (Old No.30/2011) before the Trial Court seeking relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 10.01.2008 is null and void. 4. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the said Revamma herself voluntarily executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant and that apart, the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.135/2008 and thereafter withdrew the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on 14.02.2011. It is also the case of the defendant that the said Revamma was having good health at the time of execution of the registered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 seal deed dated 10.01.2008 and accordingly sought for dismissal of this suit. 5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined one witness as P.W.1 and marked 34 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced by the defendants. 6. The Trial Court, after considering the material record by its judgment and decree dated 02.11.2015, decreed the suit in part, holding that the Sale Deed dated 10.01.2008, said to have been executed by Revamma in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property, does not bind the rights of the plaintiffs to the extent of half share in the suit schedule property. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.81/2015 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18.04.2017, dismissed the appeal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.323/2014 by modifying the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendant equally. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2023 formulated the following substantial question of law: i. Whether both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that sale deeds are not binding instead of declaring the said sale deed as 10.01.2008 is null and void inspite of PW1 is not fully cross-examined by the defendant? ii. Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in resersing the finding of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction without considering the material on record and the same amounts to perversity as contended? 9. Heard Sri.Vivek S Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Puttegowda, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Sangamesh.R.B., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 10. Sri. Vivek S. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, invited the attention of the court to the averments made in paragraph 9 of the plaint and the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court at paragraph 26 and submitted that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with on the sole ground that the First Appellate Court has arrived at a conclusion that there is no definite pleading in the form of fraud alleged by the plaintiffs in the pleadings. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the First Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the finding recorded by the Trial Court with reference to oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and on the contrary, it is further argued by the learned senior counsel that the defendant has not stepped into the witness box nor produced any relevant documents to substantiate her case before the Trial Court and therefore, equitable distribution of property by both the courts below requires to be interfered with in this appeal. 11. Per contra, Sri.Sangamesh.R.B learned counsel appearing for the respondent, sought to justify the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. It is the specific - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the First Appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire material on record in the right perspective and further concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the sale deed dated 10.01.2008 has been done fraudulently, and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the courts below and perused the original records. It is not in dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. However, the question to be answered in this appeal is with regard to the legality of the Sale Deed dated 10.01.2008. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant played fraud on Smt.Revamma and got registered the alleged Sale Deed dated 10.01.2008, as the said Revamma was aged about 101 years as on the date of execution of the registered sale deed and on the contrary, it is the case of the defendant that the registered sale deed has been made validly and therefore no interference is called for in this appeal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 13. In the light of the said submission, I have carefully examined paragraph 9 in the plaint. The perusal of paragraph 9 would indicate that the plaintiffs have narrated the circumstances in which the registered Sale Deed dated 10.01.2008 has been executed by Revamma in favour of the defendant. It is also to be noted that issue No.2 was framed by the Trial Court with regard to the circumstances in which the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.01.2008 has been made. In the backdrop of these aspects, on careful consideration of the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment and decree by the First Appellate Court, wherein it is held that the genuineness of these documents is not in dispute. The said finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is contrary to issue No.2 as well as paragraph No.9 of the plaint in which the plaintiffs have alleged that the fraud has been committed by the defendant on Smt.Revamma to secure the registered Sale Deed dated 10.01.2008. It is also to be noted from paragraph No.26 that the First Appellate Court has arrived at a conclusion that there is no definite pleading in the form of fraud or manner of concocting the document. The said finding recorded by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 First Appellate Court is contrary to paragraph No.9 of the plaint and therefore, I am of the view that the reappreciation of material by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179. 14. On careful consideration of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Santosh Hazari (supra) and Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC, it is clear that the First Appellate Court, being a first court of fact-finding, shall answer all the contentions raised by the parties therein so also consider the finding recorded by the Trial Court on each of the issues framed therein. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that without expressing any merits of the case as such, I find that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court to re-appreciate the entire material on record in the light of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. Hence, the substantial question of law framed above favours the plaintiffs insofar as remanding the matter to the First Appellate Court for consideration of the appeal afresh. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39932 RSA No. 1407 of 2017 15. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed; ii. The judgment and decree dated 18.04.2017 in R.A.No.81/2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made by this court; iii. In order to avoid further delay in the matter since the learned counsels have represented before this court, parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 17.11.2025 at 11 a.m. without waiting for further notice; iv. The First Appellate Court is directed to conclude the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT: BHK