- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.95 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. HUCHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 76 YEARS, 2. RAMASWAMY @ RAMESH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, 3. PALAKSHAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS, 4. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BADAVANAPALYA VILLAGE, N.HOSAHALLI POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572138. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S. MRUTHYUNJAYA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: DASAPPA S/O LATE MARAIAH AGED 76 YEARS R/AT BEHIND BASAVESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL, KONDLY CROSS VILLAGE, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572138. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR K., ADVOCATE A/W SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2022 IN O.S.NO.76/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, GUBBI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2024 in O.S.No.76/2022 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. Parties herein are referred to as per the rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. Suit property is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.82 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated at Nittur - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 Hosahalli Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ for short). The suit is one for declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property from one Narayanappa S/o Lakshmaiah and his minor son Lakshmanakumar under a registered sale deed dated 30.05.1988. Following this, katha and pahani of the suit property were mutated in the name of plaintiff in MR No.19/1988-89, since the purchase, the plaintiff and his family members have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owners and are continuously in peaceful possession of the suit property. Since the defendants attempted to dispossess, hence, the present suit. 4. Defendants contested the suit, inter alia contending that the land bearing Sy. No.82 belonged to the Government. It was granted to different persons, including Narasimhaiah-husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 4, under Darkasth order in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 LNDSR 17/1970-71, with saguvali chit in his favour. Since the grant, Narasimhaiah was in possession and enjoyment of Sy. No.82/4 measuring 4 acres situated at N. Hosahalli, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. Narasimhaiah was an uneducated and rustic villager and he did not apply for mutation / katha transfer in his name. Taking undue advantage, Narayanappa, who had no grant order in his favour, managed to get the katha mutated in his name for 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No.82/4. Further, his alleged grant was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru on 21.04.1975. Despite cancellation, Narayanappa, by creating/fabricating documents, projected the property as Sy. No.117 and sold it to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 30.05.1988. 5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that Narayanappa S/o Lakshmaiah was granted the land bearing Sy. No.82 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas by an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 pursuant to the grant in favour of Narayanappa, he sold his property in favour of the plaintiff. After the phodi and darkash has been conducted in respect of 3 acres 20 guntas, Sy. No.82 has been renumbered as Sy. No.117, to indicate the same, Ex.P.2 is the RTC for the year 1983-84 which shows that Sy. No.82 has been renumbered as Sy. No.117. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants contends that the suit land was a Government land granted to Narasimhaiah in 1970-71 under Darkasth Order, a Saguvali chit was issued. Therefore, the land did not belong to Narayanappa, vendor of the plaintiff. Even if any grant existed in favour of Narayanappa, it was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru in 1975. Hence, Narayanappa has no right, title or interest - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 to transfer the land in 1988. The land in question was originally part of Sy. No.82/4, Narayanappa allegedly fabricated documents, converted it into Sy. No.117, and illegally executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifies the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court, on sound principles of law and considering the documents in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff, held that there was a grant order in the name of Narayanappa S/o Lakshmaiah and thus, the vendor had absolute right to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. That plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, mutation entries, RTC, patta book, and tax receipts consistently reflect his ownership since 1988. The grant document produced by the defendants at Ex.D4 did not tally with the boundaries of the suit land. That the Trial Court rightly evaluated both the oral and documentary evidence, warranting no interference. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is justified and whether the same warrants any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 9. Suit for declaration is based on the sale deed dated 30.05.1988 at Ex.P.19 executed by one Narayanappa S/o Lakshmaiah supported by mutation and RTC entries at Exs.P.1 to 3 pertaining to the suit property which stands in the name of Narayanappa S/o Lakshmaiah and Exs.P.4 to P.17 standing in the name of the plaintiff pursuant to the sale deed in his favour. Exs.P.20 and 21 are the patta books that stand in the name of the plaintiff. Exs.P.22 to 24 - copy of the tax paid receipts pertaining to suit property, which has been paid by the plaintiff to the Government. Ex.P.34 is the mortgage deed dated 03.12.1988 mortgaged by the plaintiff in favour of the Bank. The core document is Ex.P.41-the proceedings in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 RA No.66/1975-76 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru. In the proceedings, Narayanappa and his wife Venkatalakshmamma, challenged the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 21.04.1975, whereby the earlier grant of land in Sy. No.82 had been cancelled. Upon due consideration, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.02.1976 set aside the cancellation and confirmed the grant of land in Sy. No.82 measuring 3 acres 21 guntas situated at N. Hosahalli Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk in favour of Narayanappa. Ex.P.41 establishes that the title of Narayanappa was never extinguished, enabling him to validly convey title to the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 30.05.1988. 10. Ex.P.2 is also relevant to assert here, as it is RTC for the year 1983-84, which shows that Sy. No.82 has been renumbered as Sy. No.117. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds that the Trial Court, on proper appreciation, has rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration having - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31590 RFA No. 95 of 2023 purchased the property in the year 1988 from Narayanappa, Narayanappa had valid title in light of the grant made in his favour, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court stands confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26