- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46933 RSA No. 321 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.321 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: ATTALE SIDDA SHETTY S/O LATE RACHA SHETTY AGED 69 YEARS CHENNIPURADAMALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMRAJANAGARA TALUK AN DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SMT. P C VINITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARUMBAIAH T A, ADVOCATE) AND: RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED 30 YEARS R/AT CHENNIPURADAMOLE VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTIRCT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.08/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGARA AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46933 RSA No. 321 of 2021 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 against 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 respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule property to the extent of 19 guntas is an ancestral property. Out of that 19 guntas, sold 2½ guntas of ‘A’ schedule property to one Sri H.R. Sreenivasa Murthy through a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2001 and 10 guntas of ‘B’ schedule property was sold to one Sri B Ravindranatha Reddy through a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2007 and remaining 6½ guntas of ‘C’ schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff. Recently, on durasthi work, it came to know that 5 guntas of land was encroached by the defendants which is morefully described as ‘D’ schedule property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of declaration, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46933 RSA No. 321 of 2021 recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. In response to the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement contending that the entire land of 19 guntas was already sold in the year 1951 itslef. Thus, the question of granting the relief of declaration and possession does not arise. 4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings as well as defence made by the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that originally the property was purchased by Basavashetty S/o Rachashetty in the year 1946 and subsequently, the very same extent of 19 guntas of land was sold in terms of Ex.D1. But the plaintiff got the property mutated in his favour in terms of Ex.P10 without any basis and there is no recital that how the ancestors of plaintiff got the suit schedule property. But the plaintiff contend that subsequently, he also sold some portion of the property and now, claiming to the extent of 6½ guntas and out of that 6½ guntas, 5 guntas are in the possession of the defendants. The Trial Court taken note of Ex.P16 as well as Ex.D1 and also the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46933 RSA No. 321 of 2021 admission on the part of PW1 wherein he says that he is not aware of anything about Ex.D1. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that the said document is of the year 1951 and the same is a registered document and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any case to declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner. Hence, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.8/2017. 5. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Points that whether the Trial Court failed to appreciate the admissions of defendant in the cross examination regarding ownership, possession and encroachment which has been supported by documentary evidence and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and whether it requires interference of the First Appellate Court and whether the Trial Court comes to a wrong conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish his case. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the total extent of the land and also the document of Ex.P16 as well as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46933 RSA No. 321 of 2021 Ex.D1 and subsequent sale made as well as the answer elicited from the mouth of the witnesses and comes to the conclusion that the property mentioned in Ex.P16 and Ex.D1 are one and the same thus, the plaintiff/appellant is not having any right to declare the same in his favour since what the extent of property was purchased on 29.10.1946 was subsequently sold in the year 1951 itself with entire extent. When the property was already sold with specific boundaries under the registered document, any sort of evidence will not comes to the help of the plaintiff to prove the ownership and title. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit only giving weightage to the cross examination portion of PW1 and considering Ex.P9, P16 and D1 and both the Courts committed an error only relying upon the oral evidence when documentary evidence available on record. The counsel also contend that when - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46933 RSA No. 321 of 2021 Ex.P16 and Ex.D1 are the title deed in respect of the suit schedule property, mere fact that Ex.D1 is the title deed of the plaintiff produced by the defendant cannot curtail the right and title of the plaintiff. Hence this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have taken note of Ex.P16 as well as Ex.D1 and rightly comes to the conclusion that property was already sold and hence, question of granting any relief does not arise. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property. On the other hand, Ex.P16 clearly discloses that property was purchased by the great grandfather of the plaintiff in the year 1946 and subsequently, grandfather sold the very same property to the extent of 19 guntas in the year 1951 itself. Both the Courts taken note of the fact that the property got mutated stating that the same is an ancestral property but there is no basis to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46933 RSA No. 321 of 2021 get transferred the said property in the name of the plaintiff and subsequently, sold some portion of the properties without having any title. Apart from that evidence on the part of PW1 who has been examined before the Trial Court categorically admits that he was not having any knowledge about the sale deed of the year 1951 that is Ex.D1. When such admission was given, both oral and documentary evidence was considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and hence, the question of fact and question of law are considered in a proper perspective by both the Courts. Hence, no grounds are made to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN