- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43795 RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W RSA No.843/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 809 OF 2024 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.843 OF 2024 (INJ) IN RSA NO.809/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAGADAMBHA W/O SIDDAPPA, D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AND SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SRI SIDDAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA @ MAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SONALLI, BELIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571129. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HEGDE MANJUNATH MAHABALESHWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S GURUSIDDAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43795 RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W RSA No.843/2024 RESIDING AT SONALLI VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571129. 2. SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT SONALLI, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571129. …RESPONDENTS (NIL) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.33/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.400/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD. IN RSA NO.843/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAGADAMBHA W/O SIDDAPPA D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AND SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SRI SIDDAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA ALIS MAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SONALLI BELIGERE HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43795 RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W RSA No.843/2024 NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571129 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HEGDE MANJUNATH MAHABALESHWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S M MAHESHA S/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT SONALLI VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571129 2. SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT SONALLI, BILIGERE HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571129 …RESPONDENTS (NIL) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.31/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.406/2014 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43795 RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W RSA No.843/2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in granting the relief of permanent injunction and the same has been confirmed in the appeals by the First Appellate Court. 2. Since both the appeals are arising out of similar dispute and the parties are one and the same, both the appeals are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These two second appeals are filed against the concurrent finding. 4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that the property is not identified and hence the question of granting the relief of permanent injunction doesn't arise. However, the counsel does not dispute the fact that property originally belongs to one Mahadevappa, who is none other than the father of appellant No.1 and also the father-in-law of the appellant No.2, in respect of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43795 RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W RSA No.843/2024 Sy.No.50/5B. The counsel would submit that out of 1 Acre 15 Guntas, only the land to the extent of 15 Guntas was converted and sites were sold. But the counsel would contend that in 15 Guntas of land, there cannot be 12 or more sites. Hence, identity is in dispute. 5. Having considered the material on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that when the father had formed the sites and sold the same by executing the sale deeds, in both the cases, sale deeds were produced before the Court. Apart from the sale deeds, assessment register extracts were also produced before the Court. Further, the tax paid receipts were produced before the Court and also placed reliance upon the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.492/2008 and also the judgment passed in R.A.No.40/2014. Those suit and appeal were filed by the daughter for the relief of partition against the father and the same also came to be dismissed. The said factors were also taken note of by the trial Court. When the property was sold by forming the sites and description was given in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43795 RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W RSA No.843/2024 terms of the sale deeds and subsequently, the property was also mutated in favour of the plaintiffs and tax receipts were also produced before the Court, the Court has to take note, while considering the suit for injunction, whether the plaintiffs were in possession as on the date of filing of the suit. 6. The documents which have been placed before the trial Court clearly discloses that after selling the property, the khata was transferred in favour of the plaintiffs and also the assessment extract also stands in the name of plaintiffs respectively i.e. respondents-plaintiffs in these two cases. These two matters were also taken together because the sites were formed in the very same survey number and parties are also one and the same. 7. Having considered the same, even the First Appellate Court also re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the appellants for the relief of partition in O.S.No.492/2008 was dismissed and the same was confirmed in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43795 RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W RSA No.843/2024 R.A.No.40/2014. An observation was made that the appellants herein cannot claim any right in respect of the sites which have been sold, since the property belongs to the Mahadevappa. 8. Now, the said Mahadevappa is no more. If any property remains in the very same survey number, the appellants can claim the same, but not in respect of the property which has been already sold by the father during his lifetime. Since the property was his exclusive property, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law. 9. With this observation, these two appeals are disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40