- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34702 RSA No. 1276 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1276 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.114, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 1ST STAGE, 3RD PHASE, 1ST 'B' MAIN, BEHIND NATARAJA TIMBER, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. REVANNA S/O SRI BILIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT Y T ROAD, TURUVEKERE TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHREERAM T. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.02.2017 PASSED IN R.A. NO.43/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34702 RSA No. 1276 of 2017 AND JMFC., TURUVEKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 19.11.2013 PASSED IN OS. NO.137/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TURUVEKERE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017 in R.A.No.43/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere (hereinafter termed as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal in-part and modifying the judgment and decree in O.S.No.137/2009 dated 19.11.2013 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere (hereinafter termed as 'Trial Court'). 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 plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Further it is stated in the plaint that, the suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34702 RSA No. 1276 of 2017 schedule property is the ancestral property and as such, the plaintiff has inherited the same from his father - Biliyappa. It is also stated that, the defendant is adjacent site owner towards the southern side of the suit schedule property. It is also averred in the plaint that, the defendant has interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.137/2009 seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. 4. After service of summons, though served, the defendant remained absent before the Trial Court, hence, the defendant was placed as exparte. 5. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked twelve documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. There is no oral or documentary evidence on the part of the defendant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34702 RSA No. 1276 of 2017 6. The Trial Court based on pleadings on record has formulated the points for consideration. 7. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.43/2013 before the First Appellate Court and the same was contested by the defendant. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017, allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree in O.S.No.137/2009 restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 8. Heard Sri. Chandrashekar N., learned counsel for Sri. Somashekara K.M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein and Sri. Shreeram T.Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34702 RSA No. 1276 of 2017 9. Sri. Chandrashekar N., learned counsel for Sri. Somashekara K.M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein submitted that, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered with as the suit came to be decreed based on the judgment and decree in O.S.No.107/2001 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the defendant was not a party in O.S.No.92/2008 and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, Sri. Shreeram T.Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein sought to justify the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the plaintiff is claiming right over the property in question based on the judgment and decree in O.S.No.92/2008 passed by the competent Civil Court on 21.01.2010 wherein, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34702 RSA No. 1276 of 2017 competent Court has declared that the plaintiff is having the title over the suit schedule property. 12. It is also to be noted that, compromise has been taken place between the plaintiff, his mother and sister in FDP-7/07 and therefore, taking into consideration as the competent Court has declared the plaintiff as the owner in possession of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.92/2008 and in that view of the matter, as the defendant has not contested the matter on merits before the Trial Court and as such, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion to grant relief of declaration in favour of the plaintiff while considering the documents on record, particularly with regard to judgment and decree in O.S.No.107/2001 - Ex.P1 and Ex.P6-report of the Commissioner filed before the Trial Court. 13. In that view of the matter, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. The appellant herein has not made out a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34702 RSA No. 1276 of 2017 case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Accordingly, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34