- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5545 OF 2011 (INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. REDDY NEELANAGOUDA S/O. LATE MUGANAGOUDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 1(a) SMT. VEERAMMA W/O. LATE REDDY NEELANAGOUDA, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O CHIRIBI, POST: GANGAMMANAHALLI, TQ: KOTTUR, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583134. 1(b) SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. NAGARAJ, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SHRINGERI, TQ: SHRINGERI, DIST: CHIKKAMAGALUR-577139. 1(c) MOOGANAGOUDA S/O. LATE REDDY NEELANAGOUDA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. KUDLIGI, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583135. 1(d) SMT. JAGADISHWARI W/O. LATE HATTI TIPPESWAMY, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. K-DIBBADAHALLI, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583130. 1(e) SHRI GIRISHGOUDA S/O. LATE REDDY NEELANAGOUDA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O CHIRIBI, POST: GANGAMMANAHALLI, TQ: KOTTUR, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583134. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI ,ADVOCATE) And: C. SIDDAPPA S/O. LESI DYAMAVVA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. RAMPURA VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.C. PATTAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2010 DATED 12/04/2011 BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUDLIGI AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUDLIGI IN O.S.NO.162/2007 DATED 09-07-2010 BY ALLOWING THIS REGULAR APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2011 in R.A.No.32/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kudligi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2010 in O.S.No.162/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge, Kudligi (for short “the Trial Court”) dismissing the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was granted by the government to the plaintiff on 24.10.2001 and plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the averment made in the plaint that the defendant, without any semblance of right or interest in respect of the suit schedule property, has interfered with the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.162/2007 seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 3.1. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff and also stated that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and produced 11 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.11. The defendant was examined as DW1 and produced 3 documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. 3.3. The Trial Court, based on the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 09.07.2010 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred R.A.No.32/2010 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendant. 3.4. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 12.04.2011 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, consequently, set aside the judgment and decree in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 O.S.No.162/2007. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 4. This Court vide order dated 01.07.2014 formulated the following substantial question of law for its consideration: “Whether the First Appellate Court has committed a serious error in up turning the well considered judgment of the Trial Court by ignoring the material evidence placed on record more particularly, Exs.D23 and D-30 and thus, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is perverse and illegal?” 5. I have heard Sri. M. S. Haravi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. B. C. Pattar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Sri. M. S. Haravi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the facts on record as the description of the property in the plaint itself is incorrect and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as the description of the property itself is incorrect, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 granting of relief of injunction does not arise at all and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below and perused the records. 9. The plaintiff is claiming right over the property as per the grant made by the Government on 24.10.2001. Perusal of Ex.D23 and D30 would make it clear that the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order of the Assistant Commissioner Hospet came to be dismissed and reached finality and therefore, grant made in favour of the plaintiff has been cancelled by the competent authority and therefore, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. Insofar as description of the suit schedule property is concerned, it is to be noted that the land bearing Survey No.564 is a vast land and the description of the suit schedule property in the plaint - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 itself is misnomer. The Honble Supreme Court has made a declaration of law in the case of Naganna (Dead) By LRs/Smt.Devamma and others v. Siddaramegouda (since deceased) By LRs and others in Civil Appeal No.3688/2024 disposed on 19.03.2025, at paragraphs 9 to 12, which reads as under: 9. At the cost of repetition, it can be stated that there was no certainty of the scheduled property. Respondent No.1 in his written submission had said that the plaintiff failed to produce any documents of title. The plaintiff also failed to disclose the date or year of the alleged “oral partition” in the family. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the so-called partition deed placed on record at Ex.7 relates to entirely different property and it is in no way related to the suit property. Another interesting feature which is revealed after perusal of the written submission is that the plaintiffs have filed another suit against the purchaser of northern half the property bearing no.111, namely Vedavathi. The said suit was numbered as OS No. 108 of 2003 in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 the Court of Civil Judge at Pandavapura. The learned Civil Judge, Pandavapura by his judgment and decree dated 2.3.2024 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff against the said Vedavathi holding that the appellant - plaintiff failed to prove his title to the said property. Thus, in the cognate suit also it is held that the appellant-plaintiff has no title to the northern half of the very same property. The copy of the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2024 is also placed on record along with the written submissions. 10. In the said suit, the learned judge framed the issue namely: i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is an absolute property? ii) Whether the plaintiff deed. Dated owner of the suit schedule proves that, the sale deed. dated 03.03.1993 executed by 20th defendant in favour of the 1s defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is void and not binding upon him ? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 iii) Whether the plaintiff entitled the relief sought in the suit ? iv) What order or decree ? 11. The learned Trial Court on evaluation of the material placed on record answered the issue in negative. In the said suit also the documents in support of the submission of plaintiff were the extracts of the assessment register. There was also no certainty of the suit property. The Trial Court was pleased to observe that the plaintiff is the owner of khatha No.71, later it was amended as khatha No.73 and it was stated that new khatha No. 111 has been assigned to said khatha No.73. One who comes before the court with a declaration that, he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, he must plead the correct property number, extent and also boundaries before the court with cogent and acceptable evidence. On critical assessment of the material placed on record, the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their ownership over the scheduled property by adducing acceptable oral and documentary evidence. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 12. As stated above, the High Court in the present case found that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to showcase that he was in possession of the property i.e. the revenue record extracts fall short to establish the case of the plaintiff. There was also no certainty about the suit of the property. On the contrary, there were ambiguity on the suit property. The High Court, thus considering these aspects has addressed the issue correctly and we are unable to find any error in the reasoning as well as the conclusion drawn by the High Court. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the description of the property itself is misnomer and contrary to the documents produced at Ex.D10 to 22, so also taking into consideration the fact that the grant made in favour of the plaintiff has been cancelled by the Competent Authority as per Ex.D23 and Ex.D30, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naganna (supra), I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the First Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the reasoned judgment and decree passed by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5896 RSA No. 5545 of 2011 the Trial Court. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed above, favours the defendant and as such, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 12.04.2011 in R.A.No.32/2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kudligi is hereby set aside. iii) The judgment and decree dated 09.07.2010 in O.S.No.162/2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Kudligi is hereby confirmed. iv) Suit in O.S.No.162/2007 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28