- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SIDDAVEERAMMA W/O LINGEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS, 1(A.) BORALINGE GOWDA S/O LATE SMT. SIDDAVEERAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 1(B.) S.M. KUMPE GOWDA S/O LATE SMT. SIDDAVEERAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 1(A) AND (B) ARE RESIDING AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE, P.O. GORAVALE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT AMENDED THE CAUSE TITLE AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26/02/2016. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KALEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS 1(A) SMT. CHIKKALINGAMMA, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS ALREADY ON RECORD. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 1(B) SMT. KADAMMA W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS ALREADY ON RECORD, 1(C) SRI S K BORE GOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, MAJOR RESIDENT OF GORAVALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(D) S K SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GORAVALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(E) S K MARIGOWDA, MAJOR S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, RESIDENT OF GORAVALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(F) S K KALEGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GORAVALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. SINCE DEAD BY LRS: 1(F)(1) LAKSHMI W/O S K KALEGOWDA, MAJOR, 1(F)(2) S K SRIKANTHA S/O LATE S K KALEGOWDA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 MAJOR 1(F)(3) S K SHASHIKUMAR, S/O LATE S K KALEGOWDA, MAJOR 1(F)(4) SHEELA, MAJOR, D/O LATE S K KALEGOWDA, 1(F)(1) TO (4) ALL ARE RESIDING AT RING ROAD (ARCL), IIND 'A' MAIN, 2ND 'A' MAIN, NEAR BALAJI ENTERPRISES KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-58. 1(G) S K BASAVEGOWDA S/O KALEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT GORAVALE VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 1(I) S K MADEGOWDA, MAJOR S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, GORAVALE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 1(J) S K KUMAR, MAJOR S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, GORAVALE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 1(K) S K KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GORAVALE VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 1(L) SMT CHIKKALU, MAJOR S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 W/O SIDDEGOWDA R/O GORAVALE VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT DEAD BY HER LRS 1(L)(1) G B SIDDEGOWDA H/O CHIKKOLU, MAJOR, GORAVALE VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 1(L)(2) G S VENKATESH, MAJOR, S/O G B SIDEGOWDA RESIDING AT GORAVALE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(L)(3) G S MAHESH, MAJOR S/O G B SIDEGOWDA, R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(L)(4) G S RAVI, MAJOR S/O G B SIDEGOWDA R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(L)(5) SMT. G S SAROJA, MAJOR, W/O NANJUNDAPA, CHAMUNDESWARINAGAR, BEHIND ABHINAVA BHARATI SCHOOL, MANDYA 1 (M) SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE KALEGOWDA & W/O MARIYAPA, MAJOR R/O GORAVALE VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 1(N) INDRA, MAJOR D/O LATE KALEGOWDA, R/O GORAVALE VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(O) NAGAMMA, MAJOR, D/O LATE KALEGOWDA & W/O RAMEGOWDA, SHAMBUNAHALLI GORAVALE POST, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(P) PRAPHULLA, MAJOR D/O LATE KALEGOWDA & W/O BOREGOWDA R/O GEEGUNDAPATNA, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 1(Q) SMT. RENUKA, MAJOR, D/O LATE KALEGOWDA, W/O SHAMBULINGEGOWDA MODACHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1, (D, E, I, J & K) R1 (A & B) - DECD AS PER CAUSE TITLE R1(C), R1L(2), R1L(3), R1L(4), R1L(5), R1(M), R1(N), R1(P), R1(Q) - SD/- V/O DT. 2/8/18, NOTICE TO R1L(1) - H/S V/O DT. 11/1/18, R1(B) - DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES V/O DT. 23/8/19, NOTICE TO R1(F) (1 TO 4) AND R1(G) - H/S) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S - 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 07.07.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.109/2004 ON THE FILE THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND CONCURRENT CHARGE OF FTC-IV, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 30.07.1996 PASSED IN O.S.NO.461/87 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. MUNSIFF AND JMFC, MANDYA. THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The legal representatives of the original plaintiff in O.S.No.461/1987 on the file of the learned Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court', for short), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1976 dismissing the suit for fixation of boundaries, declaration of his title and for permanent injunction and also the judgment dated 07.07.2009 passed in RA No.109 of 2004 (Old RA.No.136/1996) on the file of the Fast Track Court-IV at Mandya, (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court', for short) dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the original plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.461/1987 seeking reliefs viz, a) fixation of boundary of the schedule property; b) for declaration of his title that she is the owner in possession of the schedule property and c) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. The schedule attached to the plaint describes 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/4 and 62/6 situated at Shambunahalli village, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk with Mangalore tiled house with the boundaries mentioned therein (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'). It is stated that on east of the schedule property, the land belonging to the defendant is situated. 4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, originally the schedule property was belonging to Javaraiah son of Kariyaiah and Doddaramaiah, Kalaiah and Shivarudra, the sons of Javaraiah. They have sold the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 19.08.1963 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 and the plaintiff is put in possession of the same. Since then, the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. An application was filed before the Tahsildar, Mandya for mutating her name in respect of the schedule property. The defendant raised a dispute contending that a portion of the schedule property belongs to him. The Tahsildar passed an order in RRCR.No.912/1984-85. 5. It is contended that the plaintiff has purchased the land under the Sale Deed dated 19.08.1963 registered on 10.10.1963, while the defendant has purchased 11 guntas of land on the eastern side of schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 03.04.1964. There was no specific demarcation between the lands purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant. By taking advantage of the order passed by Tahsildar, the defendant started interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property even though he has no right over the same. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking reliefs as stated above. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 6. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. 7. It is contended that the defendant purchased 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6A of Shambunahalli village from its earlier owner under the registered Sale Deed dated 03.04.1964. Since then, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The name of the defendant is mutated in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.62/6A. Thus, it is contended by the defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.62/6A. 8. The plaintiff has filed the suit even in respect of Sy.No.62/4, which is subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.62/6A of Shambunahalli village. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in respect of Sy.No.62/6A, which is originally 62/4. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 9. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the suit property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that she was in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of suit? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for? (v) To what reliefs parties are entitled? ADDITIONAL ISSUE (i) Whether suit is hit by principles of resjudicata as contended in para 9 of written statement of defendant? 10. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 6 in support of her contention. The defendant examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 18 in support of his defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 5 and additional issue in the negative and accordingly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA.No.109/2004 (Old RA.No.136/1996) before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, on re- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 11. Heard Sri. N. Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no instructions on behalf of the respondents, as they have already taken back the file about year back. In-spite of that, respondents have not appeared before the Court. Hence, his arguments is taken as NIL. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the original plaintiff purchased 11 guntas of land under the registered Sale Deed, the copy of which is produced as per Ex.P2 dated 19.08.1963. The description found in the Sale Deed matches with the description of the schedule property in the plaint. As per the Sale Deed, the plaintiff purchased Sy.No.62/4 and 62/6, totally measuring 11 guntas in Shambunahalli village. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on Ex.P4-the survey sketch issued by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 Tahsildar to contend that this is the sketch which is in respect of property i.e. purchased by the plaintiff. There is clear reference to the land belonging to the defendant which is in R.S.No.62/6A. Therefore, the defendant has no manner of right, title and interest in respect of Sy.Nos.62/6 and 62/4. 13. Learned counsel contended that, even though Ex.P4 - survey sketch is issued by the Tahsildar dated 18.06.1986, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in ignoring the same by holding that the same is not proved. The plaintiff has deposed about this document and it clearly discloses that the plaintiff purchased 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6, 3 guntas in Sy.No.62/4, totally measuring 11 guntas, whereas 11 guntas of land that was purchased by the defendant - Kalegowda is mutated as 62/6A. Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed an error in dismissing the suit. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 14. In the alternate, learned counsel for the appellants contended that even though the defendant disputes the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.62/4, he has - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 absolutely no dispute about the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of 8 guntas of land Sy.No.62/6 as it is categorically admitted by DW.1 during cross-examination that there exists a house in schedule property and it is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court should have decreed the suit of the plaintiff atleast to that extent. But both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the plaintiff's suit in toto and prays for allowing the appeal accordingly. 15. As per the order dated 06.03.2020, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration: i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled for a decree in respect of Sy.No.62/6 measuring 8 guntas which the defendant admitted? ii) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit without considering the possibility of decreeing the suit in part? 16. The original plaintiff has approached this Court seeking fixation of boundaries; declaration of her title and for permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 described as 11 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.62/4 and 62/6 situated at Shambunahalli village, Dudda Hobli, Mandya taluk along with a tiled house with the boundaries mentioned therein. 17. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written statement denying the contention taken by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of the property as described in the schedule. The main grievance of the defendant is that, he is the owner of 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/4 which was purchased under a registered Sale Deed, which was later renumbered as Sy.No.62/6A. The defendant while filing the written statement never disputed the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.62/6 of Shambunahalli village. The entire contention raised in the written statement is with regard to claim of the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.62/2. Ofcourse, the plaintiff has not demarcated as to what is the extent of land he held in Sy.No.62/4 and what is its extent in Sy.No.62/6 in the plaint. 18. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P3-the order passed by the Tahsildar, Mandya dated 15.12.1985 in RR.CR.912/1984-85 between the very same plaintiff and defendant. According to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 this order, the plaintiff Siddaveeramma had submitted an application that she had purchased Sy.Nos.62/4 and 62/6 under the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1963. But the mutation was effected only in respect of Sy.No.62/6. Therefore, she requested to mutate her name in respect of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 and 3 guntas in Sy.No.62/4. The defendant who was the opponent in the revenue proceedings, raised objection for the same on the ground that he purchased 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6A under the registered sale deed dated 03.04.1964 and therefore the applicant-Siddaveeramma could not have purchased the said land. The Tahsildar has held spot inspection along with the Revenue Inspector and the Taluka Surveyor with notice to the parties. The Tahsildar noticed that the plaintiff Siddaveeramma is in possession of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6b and 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6A. The house referred to by the plaintiff Siddaveeramma is situated in Sy.No.62/6 and 62/6A. It is also noticed that the total extent of land in Sy.Nos.62/6 and 62/4 is only 19 guntas. Therefore, both the plaintiff and defendant cannot claim 11 guntas each out of 19 guntas on the basis of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 the sale deeds executed in their favour. Hence, it is held that it is a dispute of civil nature. 19. Ex.P4 is the sketch prepared by the Tahsildar dated 18.06.1986 in respect of Sy.No.64 showing the sub-division Nos.6 and 4. Sub-division No.6 in Sy.No.62 falls on the western side while sub-division No.4 falls on the eastern side. It is stated that the red shaded area measuring 8 guntas falls in Sy.No.62/6 and blue shaded area measuring 3 guntas falls in Sy.No.62/4. Including both these 8 and 3 guntas falling under Sy.Nos.62/6 and 62/4 respectively, there is reference to 11 guntas of land in the registered Sale Deeds. However, it is shown that 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/4 which is re- numbered as Sy.No.62/6A belongs to the defendant- Kalegowda. These Exs.P3 and 4 are not disputed by the defendant rather these are the admitted documents. 20. Even though the plaintiff sought for a decree for declaration of her title and for permanent injunction in respect of 11 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.62/4 and 62/6, contended that 8 guntas of land falls in Sy.No.62/6 and 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/2. The material on record especially Exs.P3 and 4 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 relied on by the plaintiff herself discloses that 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/4 which was re-numbered as 62/6A was purchased by the defendant and it was in his possession. Admittedly, Sy.Nos.62/6 and 62/4 together measures only 19 guntas. When the defendant purchases 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/4 re-numbered as Sy.No.62/6A, there remains only 8 guntas of land which is shown in Ex.P.3 as well as Ex.P.4 falling in Sy.No.62/6. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim more than 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 and he cannot claim any property in Sy.No.62/4 or 6A. 21. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have considered these aspects of the matter in light of the discrepancy in describing the boundaries in the sale deed-Ex.P2 produced by the plaintiff when the same is compared with the original Register maintained in the office of Sub-Registrar summoned and marked as Ex.D18, to form an opinion that there is alteration in mentioning the extent of land which resulted in dismissal of the suit by forming a concurrent opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled either for declaration or for injunction or even for fixing the boundaries. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 22. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that even though the plaintiff had failed to establish her contention that she had purchased 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/4 and now re-numbered as Sy.No.62/6A, the claim of the plaintiff in respect of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 is supported by Exs.P3 and 4 and therefore, a decree to that effect could be passed and that is how the substantial question of law No.1 came to be framed at the time of admission. 23. I find considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellants in that regard. The moment the plaintiff fails to prove her claim over 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6A belonging to the defendant, the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 as shown in Exs.P3 and 4 cannot be denied. The plaintiff cannot be driven to another round of litigation after lapse of more than 35 years. Moreover, the defendant is not laying any claim over Sy.No.62/6 claimed by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the plaintiff could be moulded in the interest of justice and she can be declared as owner of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 as shown in Exs.P3 and 4. The permanent - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 injunction only to that extent could be granted. The plaintiff may seek fixation of boundaries for 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 of Shambunahalli village from the Tahsildar concern. 24. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court even though right in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.62/6A were not justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff even in respect of Sy.No.62/6 measuring 8 guntas of land which was never disputed by the defendant. Under such circumstances, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the affirmative and substantial question of law No.2 partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 30.07.1996 passed in O.S.No.461/1987 on the file of the learned Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Mandya and the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2009 passed in - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52794 RSA No. 1323 of 2009 R.A.No.109/2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court- IV at Mandya, are modified as under: a. Suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.461/1987 is decreed in part; b. It is declared that the original plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 of Shambunahalli village; c. The defendant / respondent is restrained by an order of injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the said 8 guntas of land; d. The legal representatives of the original plaintiff is entitled to get the boundaries fixed to the extent of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.62/6 from the jurisdictional Tahsildar. Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly and send back the records along with copy of the judgment and decree. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3