- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED 70 YEARS S/O LATE SHRISIDDAIAH RESIDING AT NO.69 NAGASANDRANAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560 073. DEAD BY LRs 1a. SMT. MALLAMMA AGED 76 YEARS. 1b. ANJANAPPA AGED 50 YEARS. 1c. KRISHNAIAH AGED 23 YEARS. 1d. SMT. AKKAYYAMMA AGED 47 YEARS. 1e. SMT. SARASWATHI AGED 42 YEARS. 1f. SMT. MANGALAGOWRI AGED 36 YEARS. ALL ARE OF SRI ANJANAPPA NO.69 NAGASANDRA, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 073. 2. KEMPANNA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 AGED 67 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI SIDDAIAH R/AT BOKIPURA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI - 561 204 DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE. 3. SIDDARAMAIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI SIDDAIAH R/AT NO.69, NAGASANDRA NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE - 560 073. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KESTHUR N. CHENDRA SHEKHER, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. LALITHAMMA AGED 68 YEARS W/O LATE SHRIH.S. NARAHYANA RAO HUSKUR, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI - 561 204, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT DEAD BY LRs. 1a. K.A. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED 60 YEARS. 1b. H.N. VENKATESH AGED 58 YEARS. 1c. SEETHALAKSHMI AGED 57 YEARS. 1d. H.N. SATISH KUMAR AGED 55 YEARS. 1e. H.N. SRINIVAS AGED 54 YEARS. 1f. H.N. PRAKASH AGED 52 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 1g. H.N. VIJAYAKUMARI AGED 50 YEARS. ALL RESIDING AT HUSKUR DODDBELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE - 561 204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S. NARAYANA, ADV.) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 28.1.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-V, BANGALORE (R) DIST, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.3.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO. 79/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), DODDABALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is filed by the defendants with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.79/2003 by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Doddaballapur, and the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009 passed in R.A.No.73/2007 by the District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.79/2003 with prayer to declare her title in respect of the suit schedule properties and also to grant the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming under or through them, from interfering or obstructing with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties. 4. The defendants who had entered appearance in the said suit, had filed their written statement and based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court had framed the issues. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 3 and 29 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-29. On behalf of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as DWs-1 to 3 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-20. 5. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 the same, defendants had filed R.A.No.73/2007 before the First Appellate Court which had dismissed the said appeal by judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009. Assailing the concurrent findings recorded in judgment and decree passed by the courts below, the defendants are before this Court in this regular second appeal. 6. This Court has admitted this second appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: "whether the courts below erred seriously in not considering Ex.P-22 and Ex.D-1?" 7. Plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of two items of property viz., Sy. No.52/1 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas and Sy. No.52/2 measuring 4 acres 23 guntas both situated at Bokipura, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. 8. The defendants have not disputed the claim of the plaintiff in respect of Item no.1 of the land, and with regard to Item no.2 of the land, the defendants have contended that the said property was granted to their father Siddaiah @ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 Siddaramaiah under the Inams Abolition Act, during the year 1962. 9. The plaintiff has claimed right over Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties under the sale deed dated 17.10.1964 (Ex.P-2) executed by V.Narayana Rao in her favour. 10. The son of the plaintiff has been examined before the Trial Court as PW-1 and two independent witnesses were examined as PW-2 & PW-3, who have categorically stated about the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. 11. According to the defendants, Item no.2 of the suit schedule property was granted to their father Siddaiah @ Siddaramaiah, but they have failed to produce the grant order before the Trial Court. The documents produced by them such as Exs.D-16 to D-20 in support of their contention that the land which was granted in favour of their father Siddaiah @ Siddaramaiah was subsequently re-numbered as Sy. No.52/2 are ambiguous and there is no inconsistency in the said document. More over, the said documents are orders passed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 the revenue authorities and the said documents can be relied upon for collateral purpose and the said document itself cannot be substantive evidence to deny the title of the plaintiff over Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties, for which they have registered sale deed in their favour executed in the year 1964. Perusal of the written statement would go to show that the same does not contain any pleading to the revenue documents on which reliance is sought to placed by the appellant/defendant. Any amount of documentary evidence in the absence of pleadings is of no consequence. It is also relevant to note here that all the revenue documents produced by the defendant have come into existence after the suit was filed. 12. The defendants have not examined any competent revenue officer in support of their contention that the land granted to their father Siddaiah @ Siddaramaiah and the land bearing Sy. No.52/2 which is Item no.2 in the suit schedule property are one and the same. 13. The material on record would go to show that based on the sale deed dated 17.10.1964, the entries in respect of Item - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 no.2 of the suit schedule properties were changed in the name of the plaintiff, and at no point of time till the filing of the suit, the defendants had challenged the said entry. The courts below having appreciated all these aspects of the matter, have recorded a concurrent finding against the appellants herein and have held that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. 14. In the written statement, the defendants having admitted the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of Item no.1 of the suit schedule properties, have denied that she is the absolute owner of Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties, and on the other hand, have claimed right over the same. Therefore, the courts below were also justified in granting even the consequential relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 15. Since the plaintiff has established her right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties based on Ex.P-2 which is a registered sale deed of the year 1964, solely on the basis of certain observations made by the Revenue Officer in Ex.P-22 which is also produced by the defendants as Ex.D-1, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50550 RSA No. 679 of 2009 for the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore, I answer the substantial question of law framed in this appeal in the negative. 16. A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has to be decided on the substantial question of law framed by the court under sub-section (4) of Section 100 CPC. The proviso to sub- section (5) provides to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law which was not initially framed by the High Court, but no such additional substantial question of law has been pointed out in this case by the parties to this appeal. The scope in an appeal under Section 100 CPC is very limited and this Court cannot entirely re-appreciate the evidence and record any finding on the factual aspects of the case. 17. For all the above foregoing reasons, this second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK