- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2288 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. C. JAYACHANDRA S/O LATE CHICKA NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MARASANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT (DIED ON 25.05.2021 AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DTD 20.01.2025) SINCE DIED BY LRS 1(A) SMT. CHANDRAKALA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O LATE, M.C. JAYACHANDRA 1(B) SANTOSH KUMAR M.J AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O LATE M.C.JAYACHANDRA 1(C) KRUTHIKA M.J AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE, M.C. JAYACHANDRA 1(D)HARSHAITHA M.J AGED AABOUT 16 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE, M.C JAYACHANDRA (GAURDIAN DISCHARGED) 1(E) SAHANA M.J AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018 DAUGHTER OF LATE, M.C JAYACHANDRA 1(F) PRAVEEN KUMAR M.J AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, S/O LATE, M.C JAYACHANDRA ALL ARE RESIDING AT MARASANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK- 562101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.M.CHOWDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR A1(ATO F); V/O DTD 09.09.2025 ) AND: 1. SRI. NARASAPPA S/O POJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT MARASANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR CHICKKABALLAPUR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLAIAH M R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. CHANDINI.S, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.69/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018 THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.620.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHICKBALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL JUDGMENT This RSA is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’), praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.08.2018 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chickballapur in R.A.No.69/2016, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2016 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Chickballapur in O.S.No.620/2014. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018 The plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which was originally acquired by her father, Chicknarayanappa, from the Assistant Commissioner under a Dharakasth dated 30.10.1978 in LND No.1128/1977-78. The mutation of the said property was duly effected in the name of the plaintiff’s father upon payment of Kimath charges at the rate of Rs.95/-, as evidenced by challan dated 16.03.1978. All documents pertaining to the property stand in the name of Chicknarayanappa. The plaintiff contends that the defendant, without any lawful right, title or interest, has interfered with and obstructed agricultural operations of the plaintiff. The earlier RTC records reflect the name of Chicknarayanappa as the holder and also indicate the Government’s name without proper authority, necessitating the inclusion of defendants No.2 and 3 as formal parties. Consequently, the plaintiff, having suffered interference in the first week of October 2014, has instituted the suit seeking a declaration of her lawful right - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018 and a consequential decree of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. 4. Upon institution of the suit, summons were duly issued to the defendants, who remained absent and were accordingly placed ex parte. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. I have perused the findings of the trial Court as well as the findings of the first appellate Court and material on record and considered the synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. 7. After hearing arguments, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that RTC entry as on the date was not in the name of plaintiff, but the source of title and the grant certificate issued in the year 1978 was not taken into consideration. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff had challenged the order of the trial Court before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.69/2016. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018 However, the first appellate Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence and consider Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 and also application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, along with the documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 8. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court for fresh consideration. The first appellate Court shall re-appreciate the evidence and consider application filed U/O.XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and decide the same. It is further directed that the first appellate Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV/GSR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41