- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.350 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: MR R MUNISWAMY S/O RAMAIAH AGED 53 YEARS RESIDING AT No.107 SIDDAPURA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK- 560087 …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRASHANTH CHANDRA S N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED 57 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK- 560087 2. 2(a) MRS JAYAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 57 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SRI MANJUNATH S/O MAUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAPURA, 1ST MAIN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 2ND CROSS NEAR NAVAGRAHA TEMPLE WHITEFIELD POST, VARTHUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560087 2(b). SRI NANDA KUMAR S/O MAUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPURA, 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS NEAR NAVAGRAHA TEMPLE WHITEFIELD POST, VARTHUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560066 3. MR. S M MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O SALLAPURIYAPPA AGED 58 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 560087 4. MR. MUNIYAPPA S/O VENAKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560087 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 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 appellant. 3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that originally, the land bearing Sy.No.26 measuring 28 guntas was acquired by defendant No.1 under a registered gift deed dated 19.12.1988 and she sold 2 guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2006 and she again sold 4 guntas of land in the year 1995 to defendant No.2 and another 2 guntas of land to defendant No.2 in the year 2001. She has also sold another 3 guntas of land to defendant No.3 in the year 1995. The plaintiff purchased 2 guntas of land from defendant No.1 and thereafter, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendant No.4 is the husband of defendant No.2. He started to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over 2 guntas of land which is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 described in the suit schedule. Subsequently, Sy.No.26 was re- surveyed and a separate phodi numbers are given as Sy.Nos.26/1, 26/2, 26/3 and 26/4. In the meanwhile, defendant No.4 trespassed into the property of the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration of his title and for eviction of defendant No.4 from the suit schedule property. 4. Defendant No.4 appeared and filed the written statement contending that the very vendor of the plaintiff was not having any title over the suit property and hence, title of the plaintiff was denied so also the title of the vendor of the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he relies upon the sale deed dated 14.02.2006 as well as the gift deed 19.12.1988 and other documents at Ex.P1 to P29. On the other hand, the defendants relies upon the document of sale deeds dated 27.03.1948 and 07.05.1956, mutation registers, pahani, lease deed and release deed and other documents at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 Ex.D1 to D11. The Trial court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that unless the Court is satisfied with regard to the material details in the light of the material evidence with regard to the identification of the property, no declaration and injunction can be granted. 6. The Trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that the very vendor of the plaintiff was not having any title over the suit property, particularly relying upon the documents of the year 1948 as well as 1956 and so also the partition deed between Venkatappa, Kenchappa and Ramaiah of the year 1967 and they got divided only 4 guntas of land and thus, the question of gifting the property to the extent of 28 guntas in the year 1988 does not arise since, the vendor was not having any title and hence, dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.42/2021. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly in paragraph No.21 in detail discussed with regard to total extent of land and also earlier document of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 year 1948, 1956 and 1967 and document of partition between the brothers Venkatappa, Kenchappa and Ramaiah and in detail discussed with regard to the total extent of property the vendor was having and the said properties were also sold on different dates. In paragraph Nos.33 and 34 also taken note of the fact that vendor was not having any right and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that when the very defendant No.1 had sold the property in favour of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.2, who is none other than the wife of the defendant No.4, the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit and when no title to the plaintiff and the wife of the defendant No.4 was also not having any title in respect of property what they have purchased, the very approach of both the Courts is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court by admitting and framing of substantial question of law. The counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts have erred in ignoring the conveyance made by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 common vendor i.e. defendant No.1 from same source of title i.e., in favour of defendant No.3, who is the wife of defendant No.2 holding that transaction in respect of plaintiff is illegal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the reasons assigned by both the Courts, both the Courts have taken note of the title of vendor of the plaintiff, since originally the property to the extent of 12 guntas was purchased in the year 1948 and thereafter, the same was sold in the year 1956. Subsequently, each brothers have got the property to the extent of 4 guntas each. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that there was a gift deed to the extent of 28 guntas and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the transaction has taken place between the parties and no 28 guntas of land was remaining with the vendor in the year 1958 for gifting the property in the year 1988. Having taken note of the fact that the title has not been established by the plaintiff, the same has been discussed by both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and when the vendor was not having any title, question of granting - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45409 RSA No. 350 of 2024 any declaration in favour of the plaintiff does not arise. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and unless, perversity is found in the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, question of entertaining the second appeal does not arise. Apart from that, even taken note of question of law with regard to the title is concerned and when the very vendor was not having any title, question of conveying title in favour of the plaintiff also does not arise and all these factors were taken note of by both the Courts. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC and the appellant has not made out any ground to admit the second appeal. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN,ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38