- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 1765 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE SEENAPPA. 2. DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O LATE SEENAPPA. 3. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O LATE SEENAPPA. APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT VEERANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE GULUR HOBLI - 572 118 TUMAKURU TOWN. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDHAR TALUKA OFFICE TUMAKURU - 572 101. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU - 572 101. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE SECRETARY ASHRAYA COMMITTEE C.E.O.OFFICE TUMAKURU - 572 101. 5. THE CHAIRMAN ASHRAYA COMMITTEE C.E.O. OFFICE TUMAKURU -572 101. 6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMAKURU - 572 101. 7. THE SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH HONNUDIKE - 572 122. 8. G.R.GOPAL KRISHNA AGED MAJOR S/O G.K.RAMANNA GULUR, KASABA HOBLI - 572 118. TUMAKURU TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMALATHA V, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 R4 TO R7 - SERVED R8 - V/O 6.7.2023, NOTICE TO R8-HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2016 PASSED IN RA No.40/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 DATED 07.04.2015 PASSED IN OS No.9/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, TUMKUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2016 in R.A. No. 40/2015 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 passed in O.S. No. 9/2003 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Tumakuru. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property was a Jodi Inam land belonging to one Sri. Narasimha Bhatta of Hullenahalli village as Jodidar. The Said Jodidar had leased the schedule property in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 favour of one Sri. Kenchaiah – paternal grandfather of plaintiff during the year 1897. After the death of the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff - Sri. Thimmegowda, grandfather of the plaintiff, was cultivating the suit schedule property as Kadim tenant and after his death, father of plaintiff – Thimmaiah was cultivating the suit schedule property. It is also stated that, in the meantime, Mysore Village Abolition Act, 1954 came into force and all Inam lands including the jodi inam lands were vested with the Government. As such father of the plaintiff - Sri. Thimmaiah made an application to the Government seeking grant occupancy right in respect of subject land alleging that the land in question has been purchased from one Sri. G.K. Ramanna son of Sri. Krishnappa as per registered Sale Deed dated 01.10.1956. It is also stated in the plaint that, the then Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bengaluru, had ordered to register occupancy right in favour of the father of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is claiming right over - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 the property in question based on the grant made by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner under Inam Abolition, Bengaluru. Accordingly, plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 9/2003 seeking relief of declaration of title with consequential relief of injunction against the defendants. 4. After service of notice, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had entered appearance through learned Government Pleader. Defendant No. 8 appeared in person. Defendant No.1 had filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and had taken a specific contention that, the land bearing survey No. 27 of Hullenahalli village measuring 3 acres 36 guntas was mutated in the name of father of defendant No. 8 – Sri. Ramanna son of Sri. Krishnappa as per the index of lands and also it is stated that, since land in question had been purchased on 07.08.2001 for the purpose of formation and distribution of sites under the Ashraya scheme and the same had been transferred to Taluka Panchayath and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 5. Based on the pleadings on record, trial court framed the issues. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff had examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The defendants have examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 dismissed the suit and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed R.A. No. 40/2015 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 13.07.2016, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 in O.S.No.9/2003. Feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 6. Heard Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Smt. Hemalatha V., learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 7. Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – plaintiff, placing reliance on Ex.P.1 – order passed by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition, Bengaluru, in case No. INA.Misc. 50 and 82/1956-57 contended that, since the land in question is an Inam land and the competent authority had conferred occupancy right in favour of father of plaintiff Sri. Thimmaiah, son of Sri. Thimme Gowda and as such both the Courts below have committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title in respect of the suit property. It is also contended by learned counsel for appellant – plaintiff by referring to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No. 17/1992-93 dated 08.04.1994 wherein the Assistant Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for reconsideration in respect of proceedings for change of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 mutation in favour of appellant - plaintiff is concerned, and during the said period, defendant No. 8 had executed a registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.2001 and therefore, said aspect of the matter has been ignored by both the Courts below and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. It is also argued by learned counsel for appellant - plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died and memo had been filed to bring the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on record, however, no opportunity had been extended by the Trial Court and in this regard it is submitted that impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below requires interference by this Court. 8. Per contra, Smt. Hemalatha V., learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the Trial Court at paragraph No. 19 and submitted that, the plaintiff has not proved with cogent evidence with regard to title over the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 suit schedule property concerned and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, it is seen that, the suit schedule property is an Inam land, belonging to one Sri. Narasimha Bhatta of Hullenahalli village as Jodidar. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land was leased in favour of the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff – Sri. Kenchaiah during the year 1897. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – plaintiff, by referring to Ex.P.1 order passed by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition, Bengaluru, in case No. INA.Misc. 50 and 82/1956-57 and on careful examination of Ex.P.1 produced by the appellant – plaintiff would indicate that, there is no mentioning of extent of land as claimed by the plaintiff seeking occupancy right in respect of subject land in survey No. 27 of Hullenahalli village. It is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 also seen that nothing is stated by the plaintiff insofar as re-grant order made in favour of the plaintiff by the competent authority in the said order. It is also relevant that, nothing has been shown by the plaintiff with regard to vesting of the land with the Government since the land in question is an Inam land, pursuant to the promulgation of Mysore Village Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act, 1955 which makes it clear that the order of re-grant has to be made in favour of the owner of the land in question. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Trial Court at paragraph Nos. 17 to 19 makes it clear that except Ex.P.1, the plaintiff has not produced any relevant document to establish his right over the property in question. It is also to be noted that since the land in question is an Inam land, order of re-grant should have been produced by the plaintiff to establish his right in respect of the land in question. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the judgments passed by both the Courts - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 below, I am of the view that, the plaintiff has not proved his title over the land in question. Accordingly no interference is called for in this appeal. 10. Insofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellant - plaintiff with regard to the fact that, memo has been filed before the trial Court to bring the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on record as original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit is concerned, looking into the provisions contained under Order 22 Rule 6, since the matter was reserved for judgment by the Trial Court and during the interregnum period, i.e., after reserving the matter and before passing of the judgment the original plaintiff died and the application was filed to bring the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on record, the filing of application would not change the judgment and decree that may be passed by the trial Court. Therefore, I am of the view that both the Courts have concurrently held against the plaintiff and since the plaintiff has not established his right over the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30516 RSA No. 1765 of 2016 property in question by producing cogent material on record, no interference is called for. Since the appellant has not madeout a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC, no interference is called for and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35