- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.KOUSHALYA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O LATE K.N.GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, R/AT NEAR TEMPO STAND, N.T. ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577201. 2. SMT. CHUDAMANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O SRINIVASA, R/AT NEAR BUS STAND, MAIN ROAD, KALASAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 577146. 3. SMT . ROHINI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O SRINIVASACHAR, R/AT SREEVAISHNAVI AUTOMOBILES, HULIYAR ROAD, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572214. 4. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O SHANKARANARAYANA, R/AT B.H ROAD, BEHIND MATCH FACTORY, SHIMOGA - 577201. R Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 5. SMT. VASANTHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O CHAKRAPANI, R/AT NO.183, 14TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560019. 6. SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE K.N GOPALA KRISHNAMURTHY, R/AT NEAR TEMPO STAND, N.T. ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577201. 7. RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE K.N. GOPALA KRISHNAMURTHY, R/AT NEAR TEMPO STAND, N.T. ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.M.NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. K.S.UDAY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANGAPPA SINCE DEAD REP. BY LRS, 1(A). SMT. RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE RANGAPPA, 1(B). SMT. AKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE RANGAPPA, 1(C). SRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 1(D). SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O LATE RANGAPPA, 1(E). SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O LATE RANGAPPA, 1(F) SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, ALL ARE R/AT HOSUR,NEAR AGASAVALLI, HAIHOLE ROAD, HOSAHALLI POST, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577202. (AMENDED CAUSE TITLE AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 23.01.2020) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R(A) TO R(F)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 26.3.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.132/2011 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.3.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.334/2005 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIMOGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT This Second Appeal arises from divergent findings recorded by First Appellate Court. 2. Initially suit was filed by the predecessor in title of the appellants. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are brought on record as plaintiffs No.1 to 7. The plaintiffs succeeded before the Trial Court, which decreed the suit for declaration and injunction. On appeal filed by the defendant, First Appellate Court dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is in a second appeal. 3. The suit is in respect of the property bearing Sy. No.167, which, according to the plaintiffs, is later numbered as Sy. No.226 with khata No.95, measuring 2 acres, situated at Agasavalli village, Taluk: Shivamogga. 4. Initially, the suit was for declaration and injunction; later, the plaint was amended by incorporating the prayer for possession in the alternative. The plaintiffs' source of title over the property is the registered sale deed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 dated 28.01.1991, executed by Badiya Naika. The plaintiffs contend that the property was granted to Badiya Naika by the Government in the year 1974 vide grant certificate marked at Ex.P34. 5. The defendant contested the suit. Defendant asserted his possession as an unauthorised occupier and urged that the property granted to Badiya Naika is not the suit property. Defendant also contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed as his earlier suit in O.S. No.517/1991, for the same property was dismissed and said fact is suppressed in the plaint. 6. The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs are the owner and in possession and granted the relief of declaration and injunction. 7. First Appellate Court, reversing the findings of the Trial Court, primarily relied on the judgment in the earlier suit to conclude that the plaintiffs are not in possession. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiffs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 8. This appeal was admitted on 30.04.2014 to resolve the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of the Trial Court by recording perverse findings? ii. Whether the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is not in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC? 9. Since the respondents contend that even if the title is established, the decree for declaration of title and injunction or possession cannot be granted as the original plaintiff is guilty of suppression of a material fact, one more substantial question of law is framed as under: “Whether the relief of declaration of title and injunction or declaration of title and possession has to be denied only on the ground that the plaintiff has suppressed dismissal of his earlier suit for the same property, even if the plaintiff establishes the title?” 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged the following contentions: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 10.1 The earlier suit in O.S. No.517/1991 was only a suit for bare injunction. The original plaintiff's title was not adjudicated in the said suit. 10.2 In the earlier suit, the grant certificate in favour of the plaintiffs' vendor was not produced, and the Court concluded that it is not possible to identify the suit land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No.167, which measured around 2,000 acres, and the suit is dismissed on the ground that the property is not identifiable. Dismissal of the earlier suit for not producing the records to prove the description of the property does not come in the way of the plaintiffs filing a suit for declaration of title and injunction based on title deeds. 10.3 In second suit, the plaintiffs have produced the grant certificate in the name of his vendor and also the original registered sale deed dated 28.01.1991. The grant of land in favour of Badiya Naika, the plaintiffs' vendor, is not questioned by the defendant, and the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 not questioned by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs' title is established. The Trial Court is justified in granting the relief of declaration and injunction, and First Appellate Court could not have dismissed the suit by reversing the judgment and decree by relying on the earlier decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for a bare injunction. 10.4 Ex.D2, the judgment in the earlier suit is wrongly interpreted by First Appellate Court to hold that the plaintiffs do not have the right over the suit property. In the earlier proceedings, the Court has only held that the property is not identifiable for want of necessary documents and that judgment cannot be construed as the judgment having recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the property. 10.5 The defendant has claimed that his property is different property and bounded on the road on the western side, and the plaintiffs never claimed in respect of the property adjacent to the road on its - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 western side. Western side of the plaintiffs' property, as described in the plaint, is bounded by block No.2. Since the defendant does not claim to be the owner and in possession of block No.2, First Appellate Court could not have dismissed the suit on the premise that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property. 10.6. In the alternative, assuming that the plaintiffs are not found in possession of the property, the plaint is amended seeking relief of possession in the alternative. In the event, the Court concluding that the plaintiffs are not in possession, since the title is established, there has to be a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased defendant raised the following contentions: 11.1 The original plaintiff has suppressed the material fact that he lost the earlier suit in OS No.517/1991, on the premise that is not in possession of the property, and for this reason alone, the plaintiffs are disentitled to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 claim discretionary relief of declaration of title and consequential relief. 11.2 Sy. No.167 measures around 2,000 acres of land. The grant certificate produced by the plaintiffs is not accompanied by the survey sketch relating to the land said to have been granted to the plaintiffs/appellants. Thus, the property cannot be identified, and the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the property in possession of the defendant was granted to the plaintiffs' vendor, and the plaintiffs cannot seek relief of declaration in respect of the property which is in possession of the defendant. 11.3 The alleged grant order is of the year 1973, and the grant certificate was issued in the year 1974. Ex.P2 the survey sketch of bearing Sy.No.167 is of the year 1973, and it refers to several subdivisions in the said land, and the grant certificate should have reflected the subdivision numbers. Since said sub-division numbers are not mentioned in the grant certificate, the grant in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 respect of the suit property is not established. Without there being any document to link the grant certificate in respect of the property bearing Sy. No.167, the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of a declaration of title and an injunction. 11.4. In the cross-examination in the earlier suit, the original plaintiff has admitted that he tried to dispossess the defendant after obtaining the exparte temporary injunction. This would mean that in OS No.517/1991, when the earlier suit was filed, the plaintiff in the said suit was not in possession of the said property. 11.5. Assuming without admitting that the plaintiff in the earlier suit came into possession (after illegally dispossessing the defendant), said possession cannot be considered as lawful possession to grant a decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 11.6. The prayer sought by way of an amendment to the plaint is for confirmation of possession and not a prayer for possession, as such. In case the Court finds the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 plaintiffs are not in possession of the property, the alternative relief for declaration of possession cannot be granted. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 13. It is evident from the records that an earlier suit for injunction was filed in O.S.No.517/1991 in respect of the property which the plaintiff in the said suit (predecessor of the plaintiffs in the present suit) claimed to have purchased. The said suit was dismissed for want of records to identify the property of 2 acres in the survey number comprising around 2000 acres. From the judgment in the said suit, it is evident that the Court has held that it is not possible to hold that the plaintiff in the said suit was in possession of the property, as the grant certificate was not produced to compare the boundaries of the suit property and the boundaries mentioned in the grant certificate. Thus, in the facts of this case the Court is of the view that second suit for a different cause of action claiming declaration of title and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 injunction or for possession in the alternative is maintainable. 14. Though learned counsel for the respondents would urge that alternative relief is not for possession but for affirmation of plaintiffs' possession, this Court is of the view that, in substance, the alternative relief sought by way of amendment is for possession, though the alternative prayer could have been worded better. The alternative relief contains the prayer “delivery of possession” of the property, though in the earlier part of the said prayer, the plaintiffs seem to be seeking affirmation of his prayer. 15. The trial Court has held that the plaintiffs acquired title through the registered sale deed dated 28.01.1991, and his vendor acquired the title through a grant. First Appellate Court reversed the findings. 16. The question before this Court is whether the plaintiffs have established his title and possession, and if not, whether the plaintiffs have established their title without possession. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 17. The plaintiffs in the present suit have produced the title deed, i.e., the registered sale deed dated 28.01.1991 and the grant certificate dated 03.10.1974 in the name of Badiya Naika, marked at Ex.P.34. The grant certificate would reveal that the property granted is Sy. No.167 measuring 2 acres in Agasavalli, Shivamogga Taluk. The property records would reveal the name of the plaintiffs' predecessor pursuant to the sale deed by the grantee. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents urged that the grant certificate does not reflect the subdivision number found in the survey sketch prior to the grant. The grant certificate provides for boundaries of the property granted, and said boundaries tally with the boundaries in the sale deed, with minor variation because of subsequent changes. Apart from the plaintiffs and defendant, no other person is making any claim over the suit property, and the claim of the defendant is that of an unauthorised occupant. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the plaintiffs have established the title through the grant certificate, sale deed and mutations based on the grant certificates and sale deed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 19. It is also relevant to notice that the defendant claimed to be in unauthorised occupation of the suit property and did not claim adverse possession. Defendant has not challenged the grant in favour of Badiya Naika. No record is placed to show that the defendant’s application for the regularization of unauthorised occupation land is still pending consideration. 20. In the earlier suit, which was one for bare injunction, the Trial Court did not dwell on the question of title. It only discussed the dispute relating to the possession. The finding is that the identity of the property is not established. The finding in the previous suit does not come in the way of the Court holding that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit property. Thus, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have established the title over the property in dispute. 21. Now the question is whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 22. The defendant has established that he is in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff in the earlier suit in the cross-examination has admitted that after obtaining the exparte order in the earlier suit, he attempted to dispossess the defendant. 23. It is also noticed that it was suggested in the cross-examination of the defendant, that after the land was granted to Badiya Naika, noticing the fact that it was left uncultivated for about 5-6 years, the defendant encroached upon the property. Thus, the Court can certainly conclude that the defendant is in possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs have failed to establish their possession as on the date of the suit. 24. It is to be noticed that when the suit was filed, the relief sought was a declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiffs asserted to be in possession. Later, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking possession in the alternative. Since the sought an injunction asserting to be in possession of the property, was required to disclose the dismissal of the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 earlier suit and should have explained how the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit property. Said omission is nothing but a suppression of the material fact. 25. Now the question is whether such omission should result in dismissal of the suit despite the plaintiff establishing his title over the property, and in the alternative, when the plaintiff has sought possession. 26. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the below mentioned judgments: (i) K.Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority1 (ii) M/s. S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others2 (iii) Sri. U.Vijay Kumar and Another vs. Smt.Malini V Rao3 (iv) Dalip Singh vs. State of UP.4 1 (2022) 12 SCC 815 2 AIR 2004 SC 2421 3 (2016) 3 KCCR 2009 4 2010 AIR SCW 50 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 27. Referring to above mentioned judgments it is urged that the relief of declaration of title is discretionary, the suit is to be dismissed, denying the relief on the sole ground of suppression of material fact. 28. There cannot be any doubt that the plaintiff who approaches the Court seeking relief must disclose all the material facts. Even the defendant should disclose all the material facts in his defence. Failure to disclose the material facts must have consequences. And what should be the consequence? Should it end in dismissal of the title suit even if the title is established? 29. In the judgment cited above rendered by the Apex Court, law is not laid down to the effect that in case of suppression of material fact by the party approaching the Court, declaration of title should be denied, if the party suppresses the material fact, even in a situation where the title is established. 30. In the judgment of U. Vijay Kumar supra, the Court was dealing with the question as to whether the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 plaintiff without seeking a further relief which is required to be claimed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is entitled to relief of declaration. The ratio in the said judgment does not apply for the simple reason, in the present case the plaintiff has sought the further relief of possession apart from the declaration of title. 31. In addition to that, the Court is of the view that a material fact which is suppressed leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not the owner, and then such a suit is to be dismissed, not because of suppression, but because of “the fact” which points that the plaintiff is not the owner. 32. However, the fact that is suppressed leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and if it is found from the other materials that the plaintiff is the owner, in such an event, denial of the declaration of title, despite the plaintiff being the owner in a way, amounts to punishing a person in excess of prescribed punishment or in the nature of a penalty disproportionate to the misconduct. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 33. There is yet another way of looking at it. If relief of declaration is denied and consequently the suit is dismissed despite holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and not in possession, it virtually amounts to divesting the plaintiff's title over the property, as the plaintiff cannot recover possession unless the defendant volunteers to hand over the property. In addition to that, it also amounts to rewarding the defendant who claims to be in unauthorised possession of the property belonging to the plaintiff. 34. As already noticed, the suit is also one for declaration and injunction and possession in the alternative. The relief of declaration and injunction certainly cannot be granted as the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property. As far as the relief of declaration and possession is concerned, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to the said relief of declaration and possession as they have established their title over the property and possession of the defendant is that of a trespasser or unauthorised occupant. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 35. However, the Court has concluded that the plaintiffs have suppressed the material fact. Granting the relief of declaration and possession without any other condition amounts to condoning the plaintiffs' conduct of suppression of the material fact. The plaintiffs certainly cannot go scot-free. 36. While dictating the judgment, the Court indicated that it will impose costs to the plaintiffs for suppressing the material facts that plaintiffs are not in possession and making a false claim that they are in possession of the suit property. Because of this false assertion relating to possession the Trial Court had to frame an issue and record evidence relating to the prayer for injunction. Had it been a suit for declaration and possession, there was no need to frame an issue relating to injunction and try the case to decide the question as to who is in possession. Noticing these factors, the Court also indicated that the cost to be imposed on the plaintiffs cannot be less than Rs 2.00 lakhs. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 37. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that since the respondents do not own any land, the plaintiffs/appellants should be ordered to give up their claim to the extent of ½ portion of the suit property out of total extent of 2 Acres as a consequence of suppression of dismissal of earlier suit. 38. The Court asked the learned counsel for the appellants whether the appellants will forego their claim over certain extent of the property in favour of the respondents as a consequence of suppression of material fact, and after necessary instructions from respective parties, both learned counsel jointly submitted that the appellants have offered to part with 15 guntas of land in the northern side of the suit property in favour of the respondents. 39. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the defendant has also agreed to the offer made by the appellants. Hence, the impugned judgments and decrees are to be suitably modified. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 40. Before parting, it is to be noticed that earlier the suit filed in O.S.No.517/1991 was for injunction. The suit was dismissed for not producing the grant certificate relating to the suit property. It is not clear from the judgment in O.S. No. 517/1991 as to whether the Court pointed out during the hearing that the suit cannot be decreed for want of a grant certificate to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. Had the plaintiff been called upon to do so, probably the issue would have been resolved back in 1991. However, the suit is dismissed, holding that the description of the property is not established as the grant certificate pertaining to the suit property is not produced. In other words, said suit did not end up in adjudication but rather virtually ended, by saying that the Court is unable to adjudicate the lis, of course, for want of records. 41. Sitting in this jurisdiction, the Court has noticed on quite a few occasions, the relief is denied on the premise that certain documents are not produced and when the Court insisted for production of such documents or when the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 parties produced those documents on their own as additional evidence, the party who lost the case before the Trial Court was found entitled to the relief. 42. Denial of relief for want of evidence, is no doubt a judgment according to law, but securing the best evidence by indicating during trial, what evidence the Court is expecting, is the best way of administering justice. In fact, Section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), (Corresponding Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act) points to such a course of action to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts. 43. The observations made above should not be construed as having held that the Court is under obligation to probe into the matter if the parties do not adduce evidence. But the Courts have the power to insist for better proof. If so, then the Trial Courts need to invoke Section 168 of BSA, 2023 wherever it is warranted. To put it differently recording of evidence cannot be done - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 mechanically, and Section 168 referred to above does not permit it to be so. When the trial is on, the Trial Court needs to apply its mind to consider whether the party is producing ‘the best possible evidence’ to substantiate their plea. 44. During the trial or hearing, the Court should not hesitate to indicate what it expects in the form of evidence from both parties. Such questions put by the Court under Section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama 2023, or evidence both oral documentary secured by the courts under Section 168 should not be construed as Court taking sides with either of the parties before it. It is a step in aid to discover the truth of the matter. Section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama 2023, is an effective tool in administration of justice and not invoking it whenever it is required may result in miscarriage of justice which could be have been avoided. 45. While hearing O.S.No.517/1991, if the Court had indicated that it had to verify the boundaries in the grant certificate, probably second suit could have been avoided. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 46. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 26.03.2014 in Regular Appeal No.132/2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Shivamogga, are set aside. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 07.03.2011 in O.S.No.334/2005 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga, are modified. (iv) Plaintiffs/appellants are declared to be the owner of the suit-schedule property. (v) Plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to possession of 1 acre 25 guntas in the southern portion of the suit property. (vi) The Trial Court shall appoint the Court Commissioner to measure 1 acre 25 guntas of land in the southern portion in the suit schedule property, and the same shall be demarcated, and the plaintiffs/appellants be put in possession of the same. (vii) Plaintiffs/appellants shall execute a registered sale deed for 15 guntas of land in the northern portion of the suit schedule property in favour - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39227 RSA No. 648 of 2014 of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant/ respondents on respondents bearing the registration charges and the stamp duty. (viii) To ensure that the sale deed is technically not defective, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant shall pay Rs.101/- towards the sale consideration. (ix) The jurisdictional Revenue Authorities shall prepare a necessary sketch demarcating 1 acre 25 guntas and 15 guntas of land in the suit survey number, to enable the registration of the sale deed in the names of the respondents. (x) On the date of execution of the sale deed for 15 guntas in the suit property as directed above, the remaining portion of the suit property measuring 1 acre 25 guntas shall be delivered to the appellants. (xi) No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN, CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12