- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 931 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. D.R. CHANDRASHEKAR SINCE DEAD, REP. BY LRS. APPELLANTS 2 TO 4. 2. ROOPA W/O SRI. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 3. RESHMA W/O SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 4. MAMATHA D/O D.R. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 5. SHILPA RANGANATH W/O SRI. N. RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DANTRAMAKKI EXTN., JYOTHI NAGAR POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 AND: 1. D.P. DEVARAJU S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O DANTRAMAKKI EXTN., JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR CITY - 577 101. 2. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NAGAPPANA COLONY, TARIKERE TOWN, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. 3. CHANDRA SINCE DEAD, REP. BY LRS. 3(a). SMT. MAMATHA W/O LATE CHANDRA @ CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 3(b). SHUBHASHREE T.C. D/O LATE CHANDRA @ CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 3(c). AISHWARYA T.C. D/O CHANDRA @ CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. 3(d). DEEKSHITHA T.C. D/O CHANDRA @ CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. RESPONDNETS 3(a) TO 3(d) ARE R/AT NAGAPPANA COLONY, TARIKERE TOWN, CHIAKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 4. RAVIKUMAR S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 5. PAPANNA S/O LATE DODDAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NAGAPPANA COLONY, TAKIRKERE TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05TH MARCH, 2016 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.65 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13TH JUNE, 2012 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.168 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKAMAGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by defendants 1 to 5, challenging the judgment and decree dated 05th March, 2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.65 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru (for short, hereinafter referred - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2012 passed in Original Suit No.168 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are that the land bearing Survey No.110/1 of Dantaramakki Village, Chikkamagaluru District measuring to an extent of 34 guntas is described as 'B' Schedule property. Plaintiffs are the grandchildren of late Doddappegowda. The said Doddappegowda acquired the schedule property by way of succession. It is also stated that the said Doddappegowda had five children namely, 1) Puttegowda-defendant No.6 (father of the plaintiff No.1), 2) Chikkanna, 3) Sannappaiahanna (his whereabouts are not known to parties), 4) Kenchamma, and 5) Papanna. On 09th March, 1965, Doddappegowda and his son - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 Puttegowda-defendant No.6 have executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of one D.R. Rangegowda to an extent of 29 guntas of land in Survey No.128 and the remaining four children of Doddappegowda were not parties to the said registered Sale Deed. Therefore, it is contended by the plaintiffs that the said registered Sale Deed dated 09th March, 1965 is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they have not claimed right over 29 guntas of land in Survey No.128 however, the defendant No.1 induced the defendant No.6-Puttegowda to execute a Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002 and rectified the survey number as Survey No.110/1 with an intention to grab the schedule property. 4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the siblings of the defendant No.6 were not parties to the said Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002. It is also averred in the plaint that, there was a partition in the family of the defendant No.1 on 03rd December, 1999 and in the said partition, the land bearing Survey No.110 was not included. It is also contended that the rectification deed was made pursuant to the Partition Deed dated 02nd December, 1999 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 therefore, the execution of the rectification deed is illegal and accordingly, sought for cancellation of the same. 5. The plaint averments further reveals that the defendant No.1 on behalf of the defendants 2 to 4 through Power of Attorney has sold the 'B' schedule property in favour of the defendant No.5 and the defendant No.5 is the brother's daughter of the defendant No.1. Hence, plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.168 of 2007, seeking to declare that the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002 and the registered Sale Deed dated 31st December, 2003 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. 6. After service of notice, defendants 1 to 5 entered appearance and defendant No.1 categorically denied the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants 1 to 5 that the plaintiffs have filed suit at the instigation of defendants 6 to 8, seeking additional payment and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 8. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined as DW1 and got marked 5 documents as Exhibits D1 to D5. 9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2012, decreed the suit of plaintiffs and as such, declared the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002 and Sale Deed dated 31st December, 2003 in respect of the 'B' schedule property as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 to 5 have filed Regular Appeal No.65 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by respondents 1 to 6 therein. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 05th March, 2016, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2012 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.168 of 2007. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 to 5 preferred this appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 10. This Court, by order dated 29th June, 2016, admitted the present appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1) Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without observing the fact that schedule B property was self acquired property of late Doddappegowda (grandfather of plaintiffs) during his life time having sold schedule B property in favour of D.R. Rangegowda, brother of defendant No.1 under the registered sale deed dated 09.03.1965? 2) Whether the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in the absence of challenge to the original sale deed dated 09.03.1965 only on the basis to seek declaration to declare the rectification deed dated 11.4.2002 as null and void without praying for setting aside the original sale deed dated 9.3.1965? 3) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 11. Heard Sri. Pavan Kumar N., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. L. Srinivasa Babu, appearing for appellants and Sri. Prakash M.H., learned counsel appearing for respondents. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 12. Sri. Pavan Kumar N., learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the original propositus- Doddappegowda and his son Sri. Puttegowda-defendant No.6 have sold the 'B' schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 09th March, 1965 in favour of the D.R. Rangegowda, who is none other than the brother of defendant No.1 and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by both the Courts below. He further contended that the Courts below have ignored the fact that the 'B' schedule property was the self acquired property of late Doddappegowda (grandfather of the plaintiffs). 13. It is further argued by learned counsel appearing for appellants that the plaintiffs have sought for cancellation of the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002, without seeking to declare that the original Sale Deed dated 09th March, 1965 as null and void. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 14. Per contra, Sri. Prakash M.H., learned counsel appearing for respondents invited the attention of the Court to Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and contended that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 the rectification of the deed is permissible only by the parties in the instrument and in the absence of such parties or the legal heirs of the deceased parties, the rectification deed is not permissible under law. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for respondents places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDY vs. VERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2013 SC 2028 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 15. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the original propositus-Doddappegowda had acquired the property by way of succession and the defendant No.6-Puttegowda is the son of Doddappegowda. It is also not in dispute that on 09th March, 1965, the said Doddappegowda and the defendant No.6 executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of D.R. Rangegowda to an extent of 29 guntas of land in Survey No.128 of Dantaramakki Village, Chikkamagaluru District. The finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that the purchaser of the land viz., D.R. Rangegowda is the elder - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 brother of the defendant No.1. In the partition said to have been effected on 02nd December, 1999 (Exhibit D1) in the family of defendants 1 to 4, the subject land to an extent of 29 guntas in Survey No.128 was allotted to the share of the defendant No.1. It is also to be noted that the defendant No.1 got executed the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002 after lapse of nearly four decades from the date of registered Sale Deed and that apart, the said rectification deed was executed by the defendant No.6 alone and none of his brother/sisters i.e., all the children of late Doddappegowda were parties to the rectification deed. As per the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002, the survey number has been changed from old Survey No.128 to new Survey No.110 and no alteration has been made in respect of the schedule land. In that view of the matter, the boundaries stipulated in the Sale Deed dated 09th March, 1965 as having been changed and to that aspect, no proper explanation has been made by the contesting defendants. Therefore, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2, I am of the view that the Trial Court after, proper appreciation of the material on record, rightly decreed the suit of plaintiffs. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 16. Nextly, I have given my anxious consideration to the language employed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provided as under: "either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified." 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDY (supra) at paragraph 7 held as under: "7. Thus, in view of the above, it can be held that Section 26 of the Act has a limited application, and is applicable only where it is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, the real intentions of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument. Such rectification is permissible only by the parties to the instrument and by non else." 18. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, since all the legal representatives of late Doddappegowda except the defendant No.6, are not parties in the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002, the said document cannot be considered as legally enforceable in nature. Therefore, I am of the view that the Trial Court rightly decreed the suit of plaintiffs. Having arrived at a conclusion that the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002 is null and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32507 RSA NO.931 OF 2016 void, consequently, Sale Deed dated 31st December, 2003 is declared to be void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. 19. Having gone through the re-appreciation of the evidence by the First Appellate Court, I am of the view that the First Appellate Court has properly re-appreciated the finding recorded by the Trial Court and there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. It is also to be noted that, as both the Courts below have concurrently held that the Rectification Deed dated 11th April, 2002 is illegal and contrary to law and as such, the substantial question of law framed by this Court favours the plaintiffs. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47