- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2007 OF 2013 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SAGAR DIVISION SAGAR 577 401 3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER SHIRALAKOPPA RANGE, SHIRALAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 428 4. K K GANGADHARA DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND RESEARCH AND WESTERN FOREST AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT 5TH FLOOR, MANAVIKASA, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 560 003 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, ADV.) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 AND: N C DAYANANDA GOWDA S/O CHANDRASHEKARA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O HALENELLIKOPPA VILLAGE ANAVATTI HOBLI SORABA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT PIN 577 429 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PULAKESHI A P, ADV.) RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 8.1.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.367/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIMOGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 27.8.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.53/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC, SORAB. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 passed in R.A.No.367/2009 by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimoga. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money for damages against the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property bearing Khata No.27 of Nellikoppa village is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. It was earlier recorded - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 in the name of his grandfather Veerappa Gowda. The son of Veerappa Gowda is Chandrasekharagowda, who had been missing since 24 years. The plaintiff, for his siblings, was the manager of the joint family. The plaintiff and his family members are the joint owners and in possession of the property bearing Katha No.27. The same does not belongs to the Forest Department. There was an ancestral house in the said property, which was collapsed about 50 years back. There was a Honne tree in the said property No.27 and somebody attempted to cut and removed the said tree in 1988. They cut the tree into eight portion. The criminal case was registered, in crime No.78/88. The plaintiff demanded for handing over the said logs, but defendant No.4, was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest, had unlawfully used two big logs for his personal use and accounted only six to the record. The other two logs personally utilised by defendant No.4, carried the value and the total value was Rs.54,830/-. There was a demand by the Forest Officer - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 that he shall not claim the value of two timber logs and with that condition, they would pay the money. There was no payment of the value of the timber worth Rs.94,579/-. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing Katha No.27 of Nellikoppa village and is entitled for Rs.94,579/-. 3.1. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 represented by the learned Government Advocate and filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, that there is no village in existence called 'Halenellikoppa', as it is a Bechuru village and hence, it is in the ownership of the Government and there was no grant of any area of the Bechuru village. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 property 8 Honne timber logs worth Rs.94,579/-? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for? 3) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, and marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. In rebuttal, the defendants neither entered the witness box nor marked any documents. 3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and issue No.3 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.08.2009. 3.5. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.53/2007, preferred an appeal in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 R.A.No.367/2009 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge, Shimoga. 3.6. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled for the value of Honne Tree seized on 13.12.1988 in case No.78/1988-89 by the Forest Officers? 2) Whether the judgment and decree of trial Court warrants an interference? 3) What order? 3.7. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal with cost and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.53/2007 was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.31,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.12.1988 till the payment in full from defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the suit against defendant No.4 was dismissed. 3.8. Defendant Nos.1 to 4, aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 10.08.2016, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.31,800/-? 2) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in directing the appellant to pay the amount inspite of the stand taken by the appellant that as on the date of cutting of the tree, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 3) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in directing the suit inspite of the specific contention with regard to the limitation in filing the suit? 5. Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the First Appellate Court failed to re- appreciate the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff and he submits that the honne logs were cut on 1988 and the auction was conducted in 1994. He submits that the First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 8. Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 to 3: Substantial question of law Nos.1 to 3 are interrelated with each other and are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 9. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property Khata No.27 and somebody cut the Honne trees in Survey No.27 and could not transport the said logs. Defendant No.3 seized the said logs in Crime No.78/1988 on 13.12.1988. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded for handing over the said logs, but defendant No.4 who was working as DFO, had unlawfully used two big logs for his personal use, accounted only six to the records. The said six logs were auctioned in 1994 for an amount of Rs.31,800/- by the Forest Department and the said amount was credited. The plaintiff is entitled for two logs worth Rs.51,830/- which was utilised by defendant No.4. The plaintiff has produced the documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P24. In rebuttal, the defendants neither entered the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 witness box nor marked any documents. The First Appellate Court considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the documents produced, has recorded a finding, by placing a reliance on Ex.P12, which contains the report of ACF, which was not challenged by the defendants. From the perusal of Ex.P12, it is clear that the claim of the plaintiff was indicated by it. The trial Court has ignored Ex.P12 which is a document of the defendants themselves. The said document came into existence in 1996. While the suit is filed in 2000, the plaintiff also produced Ex.P1 the notice under Section 80 of the CPC, which discloses that Ex.P12 is the report, which is in favour of the plaintiff, and it is also observed in the report that the wood belonged to nobody and hence it was confiscated and the plaintiff has made a claim. The First Appellate Court placing reliance on Exs.P12, P18 and P20 has held that the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.31,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12%. Admittedly, there is no rebuttal evidence. The First - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46514 RSA No. 2007 of 2013 Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is hereby confirmed. iii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB