- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. a. NAGARAJU S/O K. RANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 50 YEARS. b. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. c. MUDDAMMA D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. d. KAMARAJA S/O LATE ANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 2. BOMMAIAH S/O K. RANAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 3. RANGASHAMAIAH S/O K RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 4. DADAPPA S/O K. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 5. SIDDAPPA S/O K RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 6. EARAMMA W/O K RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YERS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT THEETHA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI G. MUNISWAMAPPA, ADV.) AND: 1. a. T. RAMALINGAIAH S/O T. RAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS GOWRAMMA W/JO LATE T RAMALINGAIAH (SINCE DECEASED AND OTHER REPONDENTS ARE THE LRS.) T R RAMESH (R-2) c. T.V. KANTHARAJU S/O LATE RAMA LINGAIAH PROPREITOR, RAGHAVENDR SWEETS, MUTTAIAH COMPLEX OPP. TO NAVARANG THEATRE MAHAKAVI KUVEMPU ROAD I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 10. d. T.R. SURESH S/O LATE T RAMALINGIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT THEETHA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI, KORATEGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 5723 129. e. SMT. PREMA W/O P.M. SADANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.838 17 F MIAN, NEAR SHAMARAO VITTAL BANK V BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. f. SMT. PUSHPA W/O B RLINGAPPA AGED ABOOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT 1768/21 22ND CROSS, MRCR LAYOUT GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE - 40. 2. T.R. RAMESH S/O T RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT THEETHA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI, KORATBGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. 3. DR. T.R. RANGASWAMY S/O T. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDING AT AT THEETHA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R1(b); SRI A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV., FOR R-1(e), R-1(g) & R-2) RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED09.01.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.264/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COAURT, I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED24.09.1998 PASSED IN OS.NO.240/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR. DN.)& JMFC, KORATAGERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 ORAL ORDER 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2009 passed in RA No.264/2004 by the Court of Fast Track - I, Tumakuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. OS No.105/1986 was filed by respondent No.1 herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Madhugiri praying to declare his title over the suit schedule properties and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the jurisdictional Civil Court at Koratagere and numbered as OS No.240/1989. In the said suit, defendant No.2 had entered appearance and filed written statement opposing the prayer made in the suit. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court had framed as many as seven issues in OS No.240/1989. On behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined before the Trial Court as PW1 to PW3 and 21 documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to P21. On behalf of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 defendants, five witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW5 and 07 documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by judgment and decree dated 24.09.1998 partly decreed the said suit and declared that the plaintiffs are owners in lawful possession of the entire extent of Sy.No.67 and in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 20 gutnas in Sy.No.64 and also granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid lands. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 24.09.1998, plaintiffs had filed RA No.264/2004 before the jurisdictional Court at Tumakuru and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.01.2009, RA No.264/2004 was allowed and the suit was decreed in its entirety. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court. 4. This Court has admitted this RSA on 04.09.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal:- "1) Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is perverse in decreeing the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 of the plaintiff to the full extent while wrongly reversing the decree of the Trial Court which granted the decree only to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas? 2) Whether the First Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence of the defendants that they are in possession of 15 guntas of the suit schedule property?" 5. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that defendants have no grievance against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has erred in decreeing the suit in its entirety. The suit schedule consists of two items of properties. The dispute is only with regard to item No.1 property bearing Sy.No.64. In the said property, the extent of land available is only 1 acre 20 guntas and not 1 acre 36 guntas. Therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in partly decreeing the suit. He submits that the appellants are in possession of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64 out of 1 acre 36 guntas which is the total extent of the said land. He, accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents/plaintiffs has argued in support of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. He submits that insofar as item No.2 of the suit schedule properties is concerned, there is no dispute. In respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.64 is concerned, under Ex.P1 Sale Deed dated 25.01.1959 which is the title deed of the said property, plaintiff No.1 has purchased the entire extent of 1 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No.64. The boundaries of the said property has been clearly mentioned in the title deed at Ex.P1. It is trite that whenever there is discrepancy with regard to the measurement of the land, the boundaries of the property would prevail. Therefore, the First Appellate Court was fully justified in allowing the Regular Appeal and decreeing the suit in its entirety. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1 and they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, item No.1 in suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.64 has been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 purchased by the plaintiff No.1 under registered Sale Deed dated 25.01.1959 (Ex.P1) and Sale Deed dated 22.03.1965 (Ex.P2) for valid sale consideration and they claim ownership and possession over the said property under the aforesaid two documents. Insofar as item No.2 of the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.67 is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the said property is their ancestral property which has come to their share in the family arrangements. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants who have no right and title over the suit schedule properties have been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs. Defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim and have contended that they are the owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.66. They have stated that soap nut bushes does not exist in land bearing Sy.No.64 and it exists in land bearing Sy.No.66 belonging to the defendants. They have disputed the suit sketch. After the issues were framed in the suit, defendants had filed IA No.13 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend their original written statement and permit them to raise the plea that they are in adverse - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 possession of the land bearing Sy.No.64 measuring 16 guntas. IA No.13 was rejected by the Trial Court and as against the said order, defendants had filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP No.3480/1994, which was also dismissed on 17.11.1994 and thereby pleading made by defendant Nos.1 to 6 that they are in possession of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64 which is adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs, was not permitted. 8. The plaintiffs to prove their title in respect of the suit schedule properties have produced the original Sale Deeds under which the property bearing Sy.No.64 has been purchased. Ex.P1 is the Sale Deed dated 25.01.1959 and in the said Deed, there is a specific mention about the sale of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.64 totally measuring 1 acre 36 guntas in favour of plaintiff No.1 for a valid consideration. The property purchased under Ex.P1 has been described by mentioning the boundaries of the property. Ex.P2 is a document virtually confirming the sale made under Sale Deed - Ex.P1 but the Trial Court after referring to the aforesaid two Deeds has observed that the extent of land purchased in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 Sy.No.64 by plaintiff No.1 is uncertain and accordingly, has proceeded to calculate the extent by taking into consideration the measurements of the boundaries given in the Sale Deed. This exercise has led to a confusion and the Trial Court has accordingly recorded a finding based on the measurements that plaintiffs are in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas out of 1 acre 36 gutnas in Sy.No.64. As stated earlier, insofar as the land bearing Sy.No.67 is concerned, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire extent of the land in the said property. The Appellate Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court insofar as it restricted the relief to the plaintiffs in Sy.No.64 only to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas, though the prayer was in respect of the entire extent of 1 acre 36 guntas, which was purchased by plaintiff No.1 under the registered Sale Deeds at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. 9. It is trite that whenever there is a discrepancy with regard to the measurement of the property, the boundaries of the property would prevail. In property disputes, boundaries generally prevail over measurements because specific and fixed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 boundaries are considered more reliable to indicate the correct extent of the property. When the boundaries are clearly defined and when there is no ambiguity with regard to the boundaries, the boundaries are required to be relied for the purpose of identifying the property and discrepancy in the measurement would be secondary. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhaga and Others vs. Shobha and Others - (2006) 5 SCC 466, in paragraph No.6, has observed as follows:- "6. The High Court has also upheld the title claimed by the plaintiff over Plot No. 1301/1 Ba. Once we accept the identification made by the Commissioner as was done by the first appellate court, it is clear that the plaintiff has the right to have the disputed construction removed and the well filled up. That a property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established. Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail. There was no occasion to spin a theory that it was necessary in this suit to survey all the adjacent lands to find out whether an encroachment was made in the land belonging to the plaintiff. In this situation, we are satisfied that the judgment and decree of the High Court calls for interference. We are also satisfied - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 that the lower appellate court was justified in affirming the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff on the pleadings and the evidence in the case." 11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnappa vs. Ramegowda - RSA Nos.1498 and 1497 of 2005, disposed off on 29.02.2016, in paragraph No.22 has observed as follows:- "22. In the case of LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SHASTRY v. MANGESHA DEVARU (ILR 1988 KAR 554), this court has reiterated that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed would be decisive in identifying the property and the actual extent of land. It is also held that the boundaries prevail over extent of land. In the case of B.K.A.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY .v. GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE & OTHERS reported in 1948 PC 207, it is held as follows: ‘In construing a grant of land, description by fixed boundaries is to be preferred to a conflicting description by area. The statement as to area is to be rejected as falsa demonstration.’ - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 The said decision is relied by the Madras High Court in the case of SIVISESHAMUTHU .v. BALAKRISHNA reported in AIR 1963 Madras 147 wherein it is held as follows: ‘Where the property sold is part of a definite survey number and in the sale deed the exact boundaries of the part sold are given and the area mentioned is only approximate, the description by boundaries should prevail in ascertaining the actual property sold under the document.’" 12. It is relevant to note here that the defendants have not made any claim in their original written statement in respect of the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.Nos.64 and 67 and on the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendants that they are owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.66 in which they have grown Honge trees and coconut trees. Subsequently, application in IA No.13 was filed by defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend their original written statement and to permit them to raise the plea of adverse possession in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64 measuring 16 guntas. The said prayer was rejected by the Trial Court and the said order has been upheld by this Court in CRP No.3480/1994. In effect, by making a plea of adverse possession in respect of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 land measuring 16 guntas in Sy.No.64, defendants virtually have admitted the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the said land, which actually is the extent of land which is in dispute. Sofaras the decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.64 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas is concerned, defendants had not even filed an appeal and the dispute in the first appeal was only with regard to the aforesaid extent of 16 guntas in Sy.No.64 which is now held by the Appellate Court to be the absolute property of the plaintiffs having purchased the same under Sale deeds at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the First Appellate Court was fully justified in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit in its entirety. Under the circumstances, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in the negative. 13. The defendants in their written statement have nowhere contended that they are in possession of any extent of land in Sy.No.64 and on the other hand, their specific contention was that they are in possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.66 of which they are the absolute owners. The application IA No.13 filed by - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42802 RSA No. 471 of 2009 defendants to raise a plea of adverse possession in respect of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64, was rejected by the Trial Court and the said order has been confirmed by this Court in CRP No.3480/1994 thereby, the attempt made by the defendants to bring on record a plea about their possession over 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64 had failed and resultantly, there is no pleading by the defendants that they are in possession of 16 guntas of land. In view of Order VI Rule 2 of CPC, in the absence of pleading to the said effect, their oral evidence that they are in possession of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64 is of no relevance and therefore, in my considered opinion, the First Appellate Court was justified in not considering the oral evidence of the defendant which is not based on any pleadings. Therefore, even the substantial question of law No.2 is answered in the negative. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Regular Second Appeal does not merit consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67