- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.829 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. PUTTEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SRI K.P. MALLESH S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. SMT. P. INDRAMMA, W/O SHANTHARAJU H., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 4. SRI AJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT SY. NO. 292/2, PUTTEGOWDA FARMHOUSE ‘E’ BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE, MYSURU – 570017 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025 AND: DR C S SHAMBHAVI W/O. H.G. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT D. NO.308, HIG, ‘E’ BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR A, MYSURU - 570 017 …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that totally, 1 acre 11 guntas of land belonged to the appellants. Out of that, 1 acre was sold and retained 11 guntas of land wherein the appellants are in possession of the property. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the extraction made by the Trial Court in paragraph 16 wherein the very plaintiff’s counsel made the suggestion in respect of the suit schedule properties is concerned suggesting that on the southern side, the property of the plaintiff is available i.e., the house of the defendant. When such admission is given and when the appellants have retained the property to the extent of 11 guntas and boundary also admitted, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the contention of the defendants. However, the counsel would contend that when the appellants have retained the property to the extent of 11 guntas of land, there is a cloud on the title of the appellants. Thus, liberty may be given to the appellants/defendants to file a comprehensive suit in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025 respect of the property which they have retained i.e., 11 guntas of land. In view of the said submission, the second appeal is dismissed in view of the appreciation made by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to the property which the plaintiff had purchased with specific boundary and liberty is given to the appellants to file a comprehensive suit in respect of the retained property. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN