- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2008 IN R.S.A.NO.320 OF 2008 BETWEEN: 1. BHIMAPPA S/O SABU HONAWAD AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TIKOTA, TALUKA: BIJAPUR -586 101. 2. RAMU S/O YAMANAPPA HONAWAD AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TIKOTAT, ALUKA: BIJAPUR - 586 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKKAWWA W/O LAXMAN HONAWAD SINCE DECEASED ON 1.10.2009 LIVING BEHIND FOLLOWING LRS. Amended as per order dated 09.11.2015 Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 R1 (a). RAVI S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, AGED 42 YEARS, R1 (b). MOHANKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, AGED 30 YEARS, R1 (c). BASAWARAJ S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, AGED 47 YEARS, R1 (d). MANJUNATH S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, AGED 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O C/O: MUBARAK JAMAKHANDI, SAWMILL PROPERITOR, POST : TIKOTE, TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR. 2. YAMANABAI W/O MALLAPPA WALIKAR AGED 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESH NAGAR, BIJAPUR - 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.S.SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B), R1(C) & R1(D), SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2007 IN R.A.NO.225/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), BIJAPUR CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2006 IN O.S.NO.44/99 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT BIJAPUR, THE SAID SUIT BE DISMISSED AND COUNTER CLAIM OF THE APPELLANTS BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 IN R.S.A.NO.321 OF 2008 BETWEEN: 1. BHIMAPPA S/O SABU HONAWAD AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TIKOTA, TALUKA: BIJAPUR -586 101. 2. RAMU S/O YAMANAPPA HONAWAD AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TIKOTAT, ALUKA: BIJAPUR - 586 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKKAWWA W/O LAXMAN HONAWAD SINCE DECEASED ON 1.10.2009 LIVING BEHIND FOLLOWING LRS. R1 (a). RAVI S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, AGED 42 YEARS, R1 (b). MOHANKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, AGED 30 YEARS, R1 (c). BASAWARAJ S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, AGED 47 YEARS, R1 (d). MANJUNATH S/O MALLAPPA OLEKAR, Amended as per order dated 09.11.2015 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 AGED 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O C/O: MUBARAK JAMAKHANDI, SAWMILL PROPERITOR, POST : TIKOTE, TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR. 2. YAMANABAI W/O MALLAPPA WALIKAR AGED 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESH NAGAR, BIJAPUR - 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.S.SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B), R1(C) & R1(D), SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2007 IN R.A.NO.257/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), BIJAPUR CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2006 IN O.S.NO.44/99 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT BIJAPUR, THE SAID SUIT BE DISMISSED WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is arising from the decree in a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit is decreed and appeal is dismissed. Hence, the defendants are before this Court in Second Appeal. 3. It is an admitted factual position that the defendants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') to produce some additional documents. The First Appellate Court has rejected the application on two grounds namely: Some of the documents are already produced before the Trial Court. Secondly, the documents produced are not relevant or helpful to the case of the defendants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants referring to the genealogy would submit that one Sabu was the propositus. He had two sons namely Ramanna and Bheemanna. Ramanna's wife Sannatangewwa. Ramanna and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 Sannatangewwa had a son by name Mallappa, he was unmarried and died issueless. Another son of Bhemanna had three children namely Lakshman, Yamanappa and Sabu. The elder son Lakshman was given in adoption to Ramanna and Sannathangyavva, after the demise of their only son Mallappa. 5. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that property in question originally belonged to the propositus-Sabu who was the walikar and the property was service inam land attached to the village office. It is contended that Sabu was the walikar and after his demise, his son Ramanna continued as walikar and Ramanna had filed application for regrant and before the land was regranted he died and his adopted son Lakshman got the regrant order in his name. However, as the property is inherited after the demise of Sabu, the property should be treated as the property regranted to the family of Sabu which comprised of Ramanna and Bheemanna and their descendants. 6. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that an application is filed before the First Appellate Court to produce certain revenue records to substantiate the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 contention that the property originally belonged to Sabu- the original propositus. It is his further submission that there is already an admission by the plaintiffs to the effect that the property originally belonged to Sabu and later inherited by Ramanna. To further strengthen the admission, the documents sought an to be produced by way of additional documents before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court erred in the rejecting the application on the premise that the names of Sabu and Sabu's mother are mentioned in the bracket and First Appellate Court wrongly held that such mentioning of names in the bracket would demonstrate that the property never belonged to them and the entry was erroneously made. 7. Referring to the admission by the plaintiff i.e., P.W.2., the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that even in the absence of additional documents, the admission of P.W.2 itself is more than sufficient to accept the contention of the appellants that the regrant is for the benefit of the family as the property originally belonged to the propositus-Sabu. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 8. He would further contend that the rejection of the application for additional documents is erroneous and the matter requires reconsideration. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the grant is made in the name of Laxaman. Laxaman was given in adoption to Ramanna and Sannatangewwa. Adoption is not in dispute. After the adoption, Laxaman belongs to the branch of Ramanna. Thus, the defendants who belong to the branch of Bheemanna do not have the right over the properties. It is further submitted that nothing is placed on record to show that Sabu was holding the property. It is urged that the property being the inam land, the grant would be made to the holder of the inam and Ramanna being the holder of the inam, after Ramanna's death, the land is regranted to Laxaman, as such, the defendants cannot have any right over the property. 10. It is also further urged that the First Appellate Court rightly observed that the names in the bracket would indicate that the entries have been made erroneously and no other records are placed before the Court to show that Sabu held the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 property prior to the erroneous entry which were later put in the bracket. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. On going through the pleadings and evidence, it is noticed that the land in question is regranted in terms of the regrant order of 1969. The regrant order is in the name of Laxaman. It is an admitted factual position that Ramanna filed an application for regrant. 13. The question is whether Ramanna inherited the property from his father Sabu and whether there was any partition between Ramanna and Bheemanna. 14. Though the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that they have produced additional documents in support of their case, from the order passed by the First Appellate Court, it is noticed that the First Appellate Court has observed that the names are put in the bracket if the entries are erroneously made. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 15. This is not based on any evidence from the officials of Revenue Department or is not supported by any provision of law. Apart from that, assuming that the property was the property of Sabu, even then, if there is partition between Ramanna and Bheemanna, and if the grant is made after the partition, then the property would not belong to the branch of Bhemanna. 16. The First Appellate Court has observed that the names shown in the bracket are the names which are wrongly entered. The said observation is not based on any evidence. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the parties should be permitted to lead evidence to substantiate their claim relating to additional documents sought to be produced. 17. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed. (ii) The Trial Court shall record the evidence relating to the admissibility of documents sought to be produced as additional evidence before the First - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 Appellate Court and the Trial Court shall give finding on the entries in the bracket. (iii) The parties are also permitted to lead additional evidence if any, to substantiate their respective claims. (iv) The parties are also permitted to lead the evidence of officials of the Revenue Department to explain the implication of the names found in the bracket in the Record of Rights and thereafter, the Trial Court shall send the records to this Court. (v) Registry shall send the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the First Appellate Court to the Trial Court. (vi) Registry shall also send the Trial Court records to the Trial Court. (vii) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 16.04.2025. (viii) Since, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are not accessible to the learned counsel for the respondents, in case, the respondents/plaintiffs do not appear before the Trial Court on - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1897 RSA No. 320 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 321 of 2008 16.04.2025, the Trial Court shall issue Court notice to the respondents. (ix) After recording the evidence, the Trial Court shall send the records to the Court. Sd/- ( ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41