- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KALAMMA W/O GOVINDEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 1(A) K.G. MANJE GOWDA S/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KANAGAL VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571107 MYSURU DISTRICT. 2. SMT K G PADMA D/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A BETTADAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107 MYSORE DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A LOURDU MARIYAPPA & SRI. VENKATESH C.R., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI SOMEGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SHANTHEGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A KANAGAL VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107 MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNEEL S NARAYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.06/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2009 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), JMFC, PERIYAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2013 passed in R.A.No. 6 of 2010 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna, and the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.53 of 2000 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Periyapatna. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 defendant and the respondents were the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The original plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the declaration, to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contented that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the same was inherited by him from his ancestors. It is contented that his name was entered in the revenue records. The defendant is his son-in-law, who is naturally unrelated to the suit schedule property. During the last week of March 2000, when the original plaintiff visited to the suit schedule property to carry on the agricultural operations, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 defendant, with his supporters, obstructed the agricultural operations and denied the title over the same, and made hectic efforts to dispossess the original plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The defendant has got concocted the revenue records behind the back of the original plaintiff and created the revenue records in his favour. Taking advantage of the illegal entries during 1999-2000, the defendant tried to alienate the same to one Shivappashetty. It is also contended that the defendant has denied the title of the original plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence a cause of action arose for him to file a suit for declaration of title and possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that the suit schedule property originally fell to the share of his maternal grandfather Adavigowda, who was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 the uncle of the plaintiff. The said Adavigowda, had no male issues, but had two daughters by name Javaramma and Mariamma, who is also the mother of the defendant. The suit schedule property was fell to the share of Javaramma and her son Annegowda, who sold the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No. 17/3 in favour of the father of deceased defendant under a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1973. After the purchase of the suit schedule property, the defendant's father was in continuous possession of the suit schedule property and after his demise, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is denied that the original plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the original plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the cause of action shown in the suit is false and imaginary. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 6. The trial court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is to be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by him? 3) Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? 5) What decree or order? 7. The original plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined SPA holder as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.D1 to D7. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 partly in the negative, (but the suit schedule property is found to be the ancestral property of the plaintiff). Issue No. 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 does not arise for answer and it was already answered on 12.08.2004. Issue No.4 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff for declaration to declare that the plaintiff as the absolute owner was dismissed and it is declared that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff, and decree for permanent injunction was granted against the defendant by restraining him with illegal interference over the suit schedule property. 9. The legal representatives of the defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.53 of 2000, preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 6 of 2010 on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna. 10. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the appellant proves that on 18.06.1973 Annegowda purchased schedule property i.e., 3 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.17/3 of Kanagal village under Ex.D1? 2) Whether the appellant proves that impugned judgment is capricious, perverse, arbitrary, hence interference in the same is called for? 3) What order? 11. The first Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence answered point No.1 in the negative, point No.2 partly in the affirmative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.01.2013, and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.53 of 2000. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 12. The legal representatives of defendant No.1, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the defendant and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 14. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the defendant submits that the original plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction. He submits that the trial Court has dismissed the suit for declaration of title. The relief of injunction is a consequential relief, when the plaintiff is not entitle for the main relief, the question of granting a consequential relief would not arise. He also submits that the original plaintiff has not sought for a relief of declaration to declare that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property, but the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 trial court without there being a prayer in the plaint has declared that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the original plaintiff. The said declaration granted by the trial Court is outside the scope of the suit. He also submits that against the dismissal of the suit for declaration of ownership, neither the original plaintiff nor his legal representatives have filed any appeal. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Albert Rodrigues and others vs. Valerian Rodrigues Since dead by Lrs and others1. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment and contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff has inherited the suit schedule property from his ancestors and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit 1 2024 (5) KLJ 182 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 schedule property. The trial Court was justified in declaring that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and granted decree for permanent injunction. The first appellate court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and rightly dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, he submits that both courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the defendant. Hence the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 16. This court admitted the appeal vide order dated 25.06.2015 to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the first appellate court is justified in holding that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 plaintiff/respondent is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, when the declaratory relief sought for by him has been rejected by the trial court and when he has not filed the appeal or cross-objection against the said portion of the decree?" Regarding substantial question of law: 17. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, the SPA holder of the original plaintiff was examined as PW.1. He has deposed that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the same was inherited by him from his ancestors, and his name was continued in the revenue records. The defendant concocted the revenue records behind the back of the plaintiffs and created the revenue records in his favour. The defendant tried to alienate the same to one Shivappa Shetty. The plaintiffs to substantiate their contention, produced the documents Exs.P1 and P2 are the Special Power of Attorneys. Ex.P3 to P7 are the certified copies of RTC - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 extracts, Ex.P8 is the record of rights. Ex.P9 is the index of lands. Exs.P10 to P11 are the certified copies of survey settlement. Ex.P12 is the village Map. 18. The plaintiffs also examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, who have deposed in the same line of PW.1. In rebuttal, the defendant was examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and produced 7 documents. The trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the original plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and declared that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for permanent injunction. 19. I have perused the plaint. The plaintiff did not seek any relief to declare that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. In the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 absence of prayer, the trial Court committed an error in declaring that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property. The main relief sought by the plaintiff is for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. When the main relief was dismissed i.e., when the suit for relief of declaration of title was dismissed, the trial Court could not have declared the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and granted a relief of permanent injunction. 20. It is the settled law that in a suit for declaration, where further relief claimed as, in a particular case, as a consequential upon the declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Where once in a suit main relief is dismissed, no injunction can be granted. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 21. Admittedly, in the instant case, the trial Court dismissed the suit for declaration and declared that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property that is outside the scope of the suit. The first Appellate Court without considering the said aspect has dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, dismissing the suit for declaration of title. In the absence of the plaintiffs' appeal, the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The power of the first Appellate Court is limited to the issues. 22. Though the parties approached before the first Appellate Court, and the appeal filed, it cannot grant the relief on the matter that was not appealed by the original plaintiff. The right to appeal is a statutory right and can only be exercised by filing the appeal. The first Appellate Court jurisdiction is confined to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 the ground of an appeal prescribed to it. If the plaintiffs did not file an appeal against the dismissal of the suit, the first Appellate Court cannot act on its own to overturn the decision as it would be considering the matter i.e., not properly before it. The original judgment dismissing the suit for declaration of title remains valid because the plaintiffs failed to exercise his right to seek the higher course of review. The trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction. The first Appellate Court committed an error in recording the finding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in the absence of appeal or cross-objection against the said portion of the trial Court judgment. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is arbitrary and erroneous. Further, the trial Court committed an error in granting the consequential relief of the permanent injunction - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42119 RSA No. 598 of 2013 when the suit for declaration of title was dismissed. Hence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is also liable to be set side. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative. 23. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for perpetual injunction is dismissed. iii. No order as to the costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, would not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV