- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47696 RSA No. 961 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.961 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA, W/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, RESIDENT OF THOUDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJU M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RADHAMMA, W/O. N.M. KESHAVAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.355/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47696 RSA No. 961 of 2024 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 appellant. 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 permanent injunction, it is contented that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the same was acquired from her grandfather by name Sri Poojappa. He was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Poojappa died leaving behind plaintiff's father by name Muninarayanappa. The father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During the lifetime of the said father and grandfather, they have never sold the suit schedule property. The plaintiff succeeded to the suit schedule property after the death of her father and the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47696 RSA No. 961 of 2024 schedule property. The defendant has no right over the suit schedule property and the defendant is causing interference and hence, without any other alternative filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. 4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement after receiving the suit summons contending that the land bearing Sy.No.11 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas situated at Sambarugidakavalu Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk belongs to one Najundaiah S/o Venkatachalaiah. He acquired the same under a grant dated 19.10.1984 under the provision of Village Office Abolition Act. The said Nanjundaiah sold the entire land in favour of M.P.Ramareddy on 03.10.1996. In turn, M.P.Ramareddy and his sons sold the land to an extent of 2 acres in favour of the defendant under a sale deed dated 22.06.2000. All the revenue records stands in the name of the defendant and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and she is raising the crops. The remaining extent of 34 guntas is sold by M.P. Ramareddy in favour of Munikrishnappa and Muniyappa to an extent of 17 guntas each. Sy.No.11 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas is phoded - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47696 RSA No. 961 of 2024 and assigned New Sy.No.11/1 to an extent of 34 guntas. Survey No.11/2 to an extent of 2 acres. Since the date of purchase, the defendant and the aforesaid Munikrishnappa and Muniyappa are in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. Further, prior to the purchase by the defendant and others from Ramareddy, the original owner Nanjundaiah mortgaged the property to an extent of 34 guntas in favour of Muniyappa and Dodda Narayanamma under registered mortgage deed dated 14.03.1985. The defendant filed suit against Muniyappa @ Pilla Jagappa, Akkayamma, Manjunath and Mariyappa in O.S.No.193/2005 for the relief of permanent injunction and the same was decreed. During the pendency of suit, one T.M.Srinivasa and others have filed application to implead them as defendants and the said application was dismissed. After decree, the present defendant filed Execution Petition No.5/2008. Accordingly, obtained direction to police for protection to the defendant regarding schedule property. The said order was challenged in M.A.No.6/2008 and challenged the order passed by Tahasildar in HOA.3.27/1975. The said appeal was dismissed. Further, the said T.M. Srinivasa and others have filed W.P. and the same was also - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47696 RSA No. 961 of 2024 dismissed. They also filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner in HOA.CR.No.21 and 22/2010-11 against the present defendant and others and the same was also dismissed. The suit in O.S.No.27/2015 also contested and dismissed. Now the plaintiff by instigating the above persons, filed the false suit. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff claims that the property is a self- acquired property. But when she was examined, she did not subject for cross-examination and the suit was dismissed. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also having considered the material on record, when there is a dispute with regard to title is concerned, taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR v. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 and dismissed the appeal. The First Appellate Court also made an observation that P.W.1 did not tender for cross-examination and no value is attached to the evidence of P.W.1 and hence, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47696 RSA No. 961 of 2024 comes to the conclusion that the Trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.1 could not tender for cross-examination before the Trial Court and when the relief is sought to remand the matter to the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the same. The learned counsel would submit that when there is an observation by the First Appellate Court with regard to the title and cloud on the title, the appellant/plaintiff may be permitted to file a comprehensive suit seeking the relief of declaration without considering the matter on merits. 8. In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the observation made by the First Appellate Court pressing into service the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra), it is appropriate to give liberty to the appellant to file a comprehensive suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47696 RSA No. 961 of 2024 9. With these observations, the second appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27