- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2023 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT RAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LATE DASEGOWDA, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY RESIDING AT THERINA BEEDI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 124. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RAJALAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 1A. SMT. SUMITHRA D/O. LATE B.T. RAMEGOWDA D/O. LATE SMT. RAJALAKSHMAMMA, 1B. SRI. PARTHASARATHI S/O. LATE B.T. RAMEGOWDA S/O. LATE SMT. RAJALAKSHMAMMA, 1C. SMT. MEENA D/O. LATE B.T. RAMEGOWDA D/O. LATE SMT. RAJALAKSHMAMMA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 1D. SMT. HEMALATHA D/O. LATE B.T. RAMEGOWDA D/O. LATE SMT. RAJALAKSHMAMMA ALL ARE RESIDING AT THERINA BEEDI, BANNUR TOWN T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO. 22/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T.NARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.06.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 243/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T. NARASIPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.243/2010 in respect of the following immovable property - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') for bare injunction came to be dismissed confirmed by the First Appellate Court: The vacant site situated at Therina Beedi, Bannuru Town, T.Narasipura Taluk, bearing Municipal Katha Old No.502, 387/487, new No.808/672, measuring East to West: 17 feet and North to South: 35 feet (17 x 35), bounded on: East by : Defendant's house. West by: Kempannachar's house, South by: Plaintiff residential house, North by: Road. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: A suit for bare junction came to be filed in respect of the suit property by contending that plaintiff is the absolute owner in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property comprising of four pillars country tiled house measuring East to West : 30 feet and North to South : 29 feet and vacant land. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 4. It is further contended that on 21.04.1936 there is a registered settlement deed in favour of the daughter Neelamma and his grandson Dasegowda by Sri. Doddathimmegowda and whereby plaintiff in possession of the property. Defendant tried to interfere with the suit property on 07.05.2007 based on revenue entries resulting in plaintiff filing the suit. 5. Suit on due contest came to be dismissed holding that plaintiff failed to prove possession over the suit property. 6. An appeal came to be filed by the plaintiff challenging the validity of the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the legal and factual aspects of the matter, recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 has failed to prove the lawful possession of the suit property and dismissed the appeal. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds:  "The Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the confirming judgment of the Appellate Court is contrary to the evidence and also the pleadings, documents and oral evidence. It ought to have examined Ex.P-1 dated 21.4.1936 and registered document which contains house and vacant space as shown in the registered document. If the document of Ex.P-1 was closely examined the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit, the reasoning given by both the Courts that there is serious dispute with regard to identification of the properties such a reasoning is an unjust reasoning.  The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have noticed Ex.D-1, khatha and other records that came to be transferred in the name of the plaintiff and there was boundaries mentioned in Ex.P-1, door number has been mentioned with four pillar titled house and a vacant space which is the subject matter of the property and that the parties have in continuous possession. Therefore, the reasoning could not have been given contradicting the documents and the oral evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023  The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court if examined Ex.D-1 the sale deed date 08.10.1909, court auction purchased the property which more relied upon which is not tenable reasoning that placed by the Trial Court and therefore it ought not have accepted Ex.D1 dated 8.10.1909 as the later document on Ex.P-1 dated 21.4.1936 was to be better understood for a better title.  The Trial Court has not examined the admissions of DW- 1, the admission on the southern side of the suit schedule property the house of the Appellant is very much available and also admitting the measurement of the suit schedule property. In such circumstances how the property devolved to the appellant/plaintiff as per Ex.PW- 1 and the evidence of PW1 would substantiate these contentions.  The Trial Court much depended upon Ex.D-2 to Ex.D-4, Instead of examining the title and possession of the Appellant.  Both the courts have brushed aside the documents of Ex- P2 to Ex.P-24 tendered by the Local Authorities and the Authorities has given permission to put up compound wall way back in the year 1961 and the predecessors in possession and enjoyment as per Ex.P-1. Therefore, the reliance upon Ex.D-17 endorsement issued by the Chief Officer, Purashabha, Bannuru change of katha in the name of the respondent/defendant which becomes final - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 when Ex.P18 & P19 and P20 are clearly on the basis of the Issues that are framed.  The Trial Court has not noticed that there exist a house including vacant space on examination of Ex.P2 to P11 have not been examined, the said two documents which was incumbent upon the First Appellate court at least decreed the suit on examination of the documents.  The Trial Court mainly relied upon taking a view that the boundaries will be relied upon the prevailing documents, even though Ex.P-1 is very clear that there is house along with the vacant space which is disputed now, the Trial court has not appreciated Ex.P-1 in totality and erroneously relied upon Ex.D2.  The Trial Court made much of the issue with boundaries will prevailing not on the door number, as the case of the Appellant/plaintiff is very clear that, regarding door number and the house and the open space is very much clear in the recitals of Ex.P-1 which is not analyzed by the Trial Court, it ought to have looked continuous entries for more than 50 years which was not analyzed in totality. 9. In the appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised: 1) Whether both the Courts have fail to look into the documents Ex.P-1 dated 21.4.1936. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 2) Whether there is boundaries and the measurements of vacant site and the existence of house. 3) Whether both the courts have fail to notice that boundaries prevail over measurement. 4) Whether both the courts have examined the material documents, failure of examining the material documents. 9. Sri. Shiva Kumar V.B., learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that in the settlement deed, there was no proper measurements which has been given undue weightage by both the Courts in holding that plaintiff is not in possession of the property. 10. He further contended that settlement deed is of the year 1936, wherein there is a specific description about existence of the four pillar tiled house that has fallen to the share of the plaintiff and her son. Therefore plaintiff - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 was in lawful possession of the suit property which has been ignored by both the Courts and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent today. 12. In the light of the arguments addressed on behalf of the plaintiff, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of material on record, there is a categorical finding by both the Courts as to whether the suit property is the subject matter of the settlement deed or not is not established by the plaintiff properly. 14. Under such circumstances, the remedy for the plaintiff is to file a title suit seeking appropriate relief. Plaintiff may file appropriate proceedings to establish title and possession over the suit property in accordance with law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35941 RSA No. 378 of 2023 15. With that observation, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration. 16. Hence, following Order: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) However, the dismissal of the appeal shall not come in the way of the plaintiff working out her remedy before the appropriate suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 CT-SG