- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. S G CHANNABASAPPA S/O. H.G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE CHAITRA W/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT SHAMANUR DAVANAGERE. 2. S.G. VEDAMURTHY S/O.H.G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. DAVANAGERE CITY, SHAMANUR - 577 005 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B M HALASWAMY .,ADVOCATE FOR A1(A) SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 AND: 1. P. NAGARAJ S/O P. NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O POOJARI NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O SHAMANUR EXTENSION DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 22.03.2025 APPEAL DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R2 SRI. SHARATH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 14.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 21.11.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.255/2004 THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2013 passed in R.A. No.22 of 2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court: The appellants were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a partition between plaintiff No.1, his father, and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 plaintiff No.2 and one Basavarajappa. To perform the marriage of daughter of plaintiff No.2, i.e., Meenakshi and to repay hand loan, the plaintiffs executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants on 19.12.2002 and on the same day, they got executed a consent agreement from the defendants and as per the consent agreement, they agreed to advance ₹6,00,000/- to the plaintiffs, for which the plaintiffs executed a nominal sale deed as a security and the same is admitted by the defendants in the consent agreement. 5. It is contended that the plaintiffs inspite of the execution of a sale deed by them, the possession of the suit schedule property continued with them and they are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. 6. Defendant No.1 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for permanent injunction. 7. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs have executed a registered sale deed dated 19.12.2002 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to them. It is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property under the said registered sale deed and the names of the defendants are appearing in the revenue records. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for mere permanent injunction without seeking for the relief of declaration of title and possession is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, pray to dismiss the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 8. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: "1. Whether plaintiff proves that, they are in lawful possession over the schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff prove the interference by the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for relief of Permanent Injunction? 4. What Order or Decree?" 9. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1; examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 11 documents as the Exhibits P1 to P11. 10. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves as DW-1 and DW-2; examined one more witness as DW-3 and marked three documents as Exhibits D1 to D3. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 11. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2011. 12. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.255 of 2004, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.22 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere. 13. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove their possession over the schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether they further prove the alleged interference to their possession by the defendants? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 3. Whether the trial Court has erred in not considering the materials on record in a proper perspective? 4. If so, whether the impugned judgment and decree under appeal calls for interference by this Court? 5. What order or decree?" 14. The First Appellate, Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and point No.5 as per the final order; and the appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21.11.2011 passed in O.S. No.255 of 2004 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Davanagere was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was decreed. 15. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.22 of 2011, preferred this regular second appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 16. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 17. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiffs during the pendency of the appeal in R.A. No.22 of 2011, filed a comprehensive suit in O.S. No.515 of 2010 for declaration of title, injunction and cancellation of the registered sale deed. 18. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed in I.A. No.XV for rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court, by order dated 27.02.2023, allowed the application of I.A. No.XV and rejected the plaint. 19. He also submits that the plaintiffs aggrieved by the order on I.A. No.XV preferred an appeal in RA No. 66 of 2023 on the file of learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.02.2025. He submits that in view of the rejection of plaint in O.S. No.515 of 2010, which is a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 comprehensive suit for the relief of declaration and cancellation of the registered sale deed, thus, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court becomes redundant. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the order passed on I.A. No.XV in O.S. No.515 of 2010 was not disposed of on merits, but, it was disposed of on technical grounds. He submits that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal. 21. This Court admitted this appeal on 02.08.2024 to consider the following substantial question of law: " Whether the defendants prove that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in recording the finding that the defendants have not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 produced any document to prove the possession without looking into the recital of Exs.D1 to D3, wherein there is a recital in Exs.D1 to D3 that the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered in favour of the defendants? Reg. Substantial Question of Law: 22. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, contending that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property. They were in need of money. They approached the defendants and requested to advance a hand loan, for which the defendants insisted to execute a nominal registered sale deed in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs executed a nominal registered sale deed in favour of the defendants. But the possession continued with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 23. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1. He reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and also produced the documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P11. The plaintiffs also examined one more witness as PW2, who has deposed that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 24. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and also examined two witnesses to establish that the plaintiffs have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants after receiving the consideration amount and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. There is a recital in the registered sale deed regarding the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 25. From the perusal of the records, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit schedule property and they have executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants. They sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants by executing a registered sale deed. 26. The defendants, to prove that the plaintiffs have executed a registered sale deed, produced the documents Exhibits D1 to D3, which disclose that the plaintiffs have executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the defendants and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property and the name of the defendants are entered in the revenue records based on Exhibits D1 to D3. There is a presumption regarding the entries in the revenue records under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said presumption was not rebutted by the plaintiffs. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 27. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No.515 of 2010 for the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and for cancellation of the registered sale deeds executed by them in favour of the defendants. Defendant No.2 therein filed an application for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. 28. The Trial Court vide ordered dated 27.02.2023 allowed I.A. No.XV and rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the order on I.A. No.XV passed in O.S. No.515 of 2010, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.66 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere. The First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2025 dismissed the appeal. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 29. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the order on I.A. No.XV and the judgment in R.A. No.66 of 2023 preferred a second appeal in R.S.A. No.520 of 2025 before this Court. 30. This Court vide judgment dated 08.09.2025 dismissed the appeal, as the plaintiffs have admitted regarding the execution of the register sale deeds in favour of the defendants and sought for cancellation of the said sale deeds. 31. From the recital of Exhibits D1 to D3, it discloses that the possession was delivered by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. The First Appellate Court, without considering the said aspect, has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 32. Admittedly, the defendants have proved the possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 interference by the defendants. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary and erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 33. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the affirmative. 34. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 14.02.2013 passed in R.A. No.22 of 2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere is set aside. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 21.11.2011 passed in O.S. No.255 of 2004 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Davanagere, is restored. (iv) No orders as to the costs. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43999 RSA No. 895 of 2013 (v) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8