- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27542 RSA No. 811 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.811 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.BALAKRISHNA GOWDA AGED 68 YEARS S/O LATE HUKRAPPA GOWDA R/O ADINJA HOUSE ALETTY POST, SULLIA TALUK D K DIST 574239 2. YELLIYANNA GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. LOKESHWARI M W/O LATE YELLIANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SMT. RAKSHITHA M Y D/O LATE YELLIANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. SMT. AMITHA M Y D/O LATE YELLIANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 5. SRI PARAMESHWARA GOWDA S/O LATE HUKRAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27542 RSA No. 811 of 2021 6. SRI HARIYAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE HUKRAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 7. SRI RAGHAVAN GOWDA S/O LATE HUKRAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 8. SRI RAMACHANDRA GOWDA S/O LATE HUKRAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 9. SMT. GULABI D/O LATE HUKRAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS APPELLANTS LR'S YELLIYANNA GOWDA 2 TO 4 AND 5 TO 9 ARE R/AT MUNDUGARU LOCALITY KALANJA VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK – 574 212 D K DIST APPELLANT No.1 IS THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTIVE HOLDING GPA FOR APPELLANT Nos.2 TO 9 BALAKRISHNA GOWDA …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARSHENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M SUBRAHMANYA S/O LATE RAMAHCANDRAYYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O MUNDUGARU VILLAGE KALANJA VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK, D K DIST - 574212 …RESPONDENT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27542 RSA No. 811 of 2021 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SULLIA AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo along with the documents i.e., Form No.10 registering the father of the appellants to be the tenant and in occupation of Sy.No.no.45/1B measuring 1.81 acres; surve3y sketch for Sy.No.45/1B in LRF No.255/74-75; M.R.No.87/2009-10; M.R.No.T20/2015-169; RTC for the period of 2025-26 and Gift Deed dated 30.06.2016 executed by the respondent in favour of his wife. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants referring this memo brought to notice of this Court a sketch in respect of Survey No.45/1B, M.R and also the RTC extract - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27542 RSA No. 811 of 2021 and gift deed and counsel made an attempt to brought to notice of this Court that in respect of Survey No.45/1P2 which was renumbered after the durasth as Sy.No.45/10, on the southern side Sy.No.1C is there but in the gift deed it is shown as stream and also brought to notice of this Court the sketch which is available in page No.4 as well as in page No.17 and the said submission of the counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted since, on the northern side, property No.1A shown 1B and counsel submits that 1B is the same Sy.No.45/1P2 which is re-numbered as 45/10, but not 1C on the southern side and southern side there is a stream. When such attempt is made before this Court, this Court is not convinced with regard to the very submission of the counsel for the appellants that there is a difference of boundary in which the possession was taken, but, not disputes the fact that boundary is shown in the decree and also in the execution petition is one and the same. When such being the case, even the Trial Court also, when objection was filed, enquired the matter and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27542 RSA No. 811 of 2021 also passed an order considering material and record wherein also found that earlier Sy.No.45/1P2 was renumbered as 45/10 and no dispute with regard to the said fact is concerned and only the counsel contends that boundary shown in the execution petition is not in consonance with the decree. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that though objection was raised, the Court has to take note of the decree passed and the Executing Court cannot change the same and the same is also the settled law that the Executing Court has to only enforce the decree. The order of rejection is also challenged in R.A. No.12/2020 and Appellate Court also while considering particularly in paragraph No.13 also in detail discussed that Sy.No.45/1P2 was changed after the durasth as 45/10 and no dispute to that effect also. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that the Hukrappa is the father of the present appellants. There is no evidence before the Trial Court or before this Court that the Hukrappa was in possession of Sy.No.45/1P2 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27542 RSA No. 811 of 2021 Sy.No.45/10. The said Hukrappa was in possession of Sy.No.45/1P2 and subsequently it is changed as 45/10 and he continued the possession till his death and thereafter his sons being the appellants are in possession. The decree holder has given the boundaries to the said survey number in the execution petition and he has not changed the boundaries. But only the number is changed, that is also after the durasth and hence, First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that when the decree tallies with the execution petition, question of interference does not arise. Under such circumstances, there is no any change of boundary in the execution petition and only number is not mentioned as No.45/10 and appellants also not disputes that the said earlier Sy.No.45/1P2 is renumbered as Sy.No.45/10, the very contention of the appellants’ counsel that possession taken is not in conformity with the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect of Sy.No.45/1P2 and changed Sy.No.45/1/. When there is no different boundaries are given in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27542 RSA No. 811 of 2021 execution petition and when the possession was delivered in terms of the delivery warrant in terms of the schedule mentioned in the execution petition and same is in conformity with the decree passed in respect of Sy.No.45/1P2, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and there are no grounds to admit the appeal and frame the substantive questions of law. 3. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN