- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 424 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O. LATE LAXMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE-577 217. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: B. G. BENAKAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. LATE BENAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE BENAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SURESH S/O. LATE BENAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. GIRISH S/O. LATE BENAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 ALL ARE R/O. BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN CODE- 577 217. …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S. NO.2/2011 (OLD NO.252/2007) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNAGIRI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 in R.A.No.44/2012 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter termed as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2012 in O.S.No.2/2011 (old No.252/2007) on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 (hereinafter termed as 'Trial Court'), dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the land bearing Sy.No.100/P6 measuring to an extent of 04 acres of Kanchugaranahalli Village, Channagiri Taluk was granted in favour of one Sri. Haleshappa by the State Government as per the order of Grant dated 19.01.1963. The Grant Certificate was accordingly issued. It is also stated that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from the original Grantee - Sri. Haleshappa on 27.01.2004. Thereafter, the revenue records stood in the name of the plaintiff. 4. It is the case of plaintiff that, the defendant without any semblance of right or interest over the suit schedule property, has interfered with the suit schedule property based on the Will dated 31.01.1986 stated to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 have been executed by one Sri. Nagappa in favour of the defendant. It is also stated that, the defendant had filed O.S.No.207/2004 against the plaintiff before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Channagiri, seeking relief of permanent injunction and the said suit came to be decreed by the competent Civil Court. Hence, the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.252/2007 before the competent Civil Court seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. The said suit was transferred to III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Davanagere as per the notification dated 08.07.2009 and renumbered as O.S.No.2/2011, having transferred to the newly established Court at Senior Civil Judge Court at Channagiri. 5. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that, the defendant is the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.100/12 (New Sy.No.218) of Kanchugaranahalli - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 Village, Channagiri Taluk to an extent of 05 acres. It is also stated that, the defendant has filed O.S.No.207/2004 against the plaintiff as well as the vendor of the plaintiff - Sri. Haleshappa and the said suit came to be decreed and therefore, it is stated that, the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be accepted. 6. It is also stated in the written statement disputing the boundaries reflected in the schedule to the plaint and therefore, it is the case of the defendant that, the schedule property claimed by the plaintiff is un-identifiable and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. The Trial Court based on pleadings on record has formulated the issues for its consideration. 8. In order to establish her case, the plaintiff has examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked eleven documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The Defendant has examined two witnesses - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked nineteen documents and same were marked as Exs.D1 to D19. 9. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 09.03.2012 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.44/2012 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2/2011. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 10. Heard Sri. R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 11. Sri. R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of this Court to the finding recorded by both the Courts below and referred to Ex.P1 - - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 Grant Certificate issued by the State Government in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff - Sri. Haleshappa. It is also argued that, though the boundaries have not been specified in the Grant Certificate however, the revenue sketch at Ex.P2 would indicate the boundaries of the suit schedule property and in this regard, he contended that, the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is the adjacent owner towards the other side of the suit schedule property and therefore he sought for interference of this Court. 12. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant by referring to Ex.P10 - Order dated 14.08.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner wherein the resurvey has been ordered by the revenue authorities and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 13. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. The plaintiff is claiming relief of declaration in terms - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 of the registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.2004 wherein, the vendor of the plaintiff - Sri. Haleshappa, claims to be the Grantee of the land as per the Grant Order dated 19.01.1963. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that, there is no boundaries mentioned in the Grant Order nor in the subsequent documents issued by the competent authority. It is also to be noted that, the plaintiff has examined P.W.4 - Sri. Haleshappa (original Grantee) wherein, the said P.W.4 himself admits about the non-mentioning of the boundaries in the Grant Order and expressed doubts about identity of the land in question. 14. In that view of the matter, as there is no document to show that the boundaries of 04 acres of land claimed by the plaintiff and in the absence of admissible evidence to show that, his vendor - Sri. Haleshappa was granted land bearing Sy.No.100/P6 by the competent authority and as such, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is also to be noted that, P.W.4 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 himself has categorically admitted that the land to an extent of 04 acres was granted in Sy.No.100, however, the claim is made by the plaintiff in land bearing Sy.No.100/P6. In that view of the matter, since the land claimed by the plaintiff is not identifiable and the suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking title over the suit schedule property and in the absence of description of the land in question as claimed by the plaintiff based on the Grant Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff, I am of the view that, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out a case for grating relief of declaration. In that view of the matter, any amount of revenue records placed by the plaintiff would not suffice for grant of declaratory relief in the absence of title document to the plaintiff. I am of the view that, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 15. As the appellant has not made out a case for framing substantial question of law as required under - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34701 RSA No. 424 of 2017 Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. 16. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, no further order has to be made on I.A.No.1/2017. Accordingly, the said application is also dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33