- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1816 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: ANJANAPPA SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANARAHALLI ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BABU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUNIYELLAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODATHIGATE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELARAM POST SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE- 560 035. 2. VENKATARAMAIAH SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANARAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 3. MUNIYAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANARAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 4. SMT MUNIYAMMA WIFE OF LATE MUNIMADHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDINGA T BANARAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 5. 5(a) MADAPPA ALIAS MUNIMADAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS MUNITHAYAMMA WIFE OF LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5(b) SUNANDAMMA D/O LATE MADAPPA ALIAS MUNIMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 5(c) MANJUNATHA SON OF LATE MADHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5(d) DEVENDRA SON OF LATE MADAPPA ALIAS MUNIMADAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 5(e) MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MADAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 ALIAS MUNIMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ALL OF THEM ARE RESIDING AT BANARAHALLI ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 6. SMT MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA 7. SMT MUNIYELLAMMA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA W/O DASAPPA, AGE MAJOR BOTH OF THEM ARE RESIDING AT BANARAHALLI, ANUGONDAHALLI HOBLI DEVANAGUNDI POST HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 8. LOHITH C. REDDY S/O M. CHANDRAREDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.2491, 17TH MAIN HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 008. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 18.01.2024, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 18.04.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF R5(A), R5 (D) R5 (E), R6 & R7; SRI.B.S. CHENNA KESHAVA., ADVOCATE FOR R8; V/O DATED 16.02.2026, NOTICE TO UNSERVED RESPONDENTS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES DISPENSED WITH) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.723/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.723/2011 is before this Court in this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2017 passed in the said suit on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as `trial Court'), by which his suit for declaration and injunction has been dismissed. 2. Subject matter of the suit is property bearing Sy.No.29/1, measuring 1 acre and 37 guntas situated at Banarahalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). 3. The case of the plaintiff is that his grandfather namely Munishamappa also known as Munishami had purchased the suit property in terms of deed of sale dated 24.04.1952 and his name has been mutated in the revenue records vide MR No.235/1952-1953. Said Munishamappa died leaving behind - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 two sons namely Chikkaramaiah and Muniyappa, who inherited the suit property. Muniyappa has three sons namely; Ramakrishnappa, Anjanappa-the plaintiff and Munikrishnappa. 4. After the death of his grandfather Munishamappa also known as Munishami, khatha was certified in the name of his uncle Chikkaramaiah. Muniyappa father of the plaintiff predeceased Chikkaramaiah, as such name of Chikkaramaiah continued in the revenue records. Chikkaramaiah died issueless. 5. Plaintiff, his mother Ramakka and his two brothers Ramakrishnappa and Munikrishnappa became the co-owners of the entire suit property. The other two brothers of the plaintiffs are illiterate. As such they did not obtain the change of revenue records. Taking advantage of similarity in the name of the grandfather of the plaintiff, Munishamappa also known as Munishami son of Madappa, defendants 2 to 5 filed an application dated 29.02.2008 before the Tahsildar, Hosakote seeking change of khatha in their names. Plaintiff filed the objection to the said application. A case was registered in RRT(DIS) 192/2007-08. On production of documents by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 plaintiff in justification of his claim, defendants were convinced and accordingly entered into a compromise before the Tahsildar, Hosakote, conceding title of the plaintiff. The Tahsildar, Hosakote by order dated 29.06.2010, rejected the claim of the defendants and directed the plaintiff to file application for transfer of khatha in his favour. 6. Defendants in collusion have filed suit in O.S.No.1889/2008 and have obtained a compromise decree in respect of the suit property without impleading the plaintiff. In the said suit, no documents are produced by the defendants to prove that the suit property belong to the joint family. Revenue records produced in the said suit indicate the name of Chikkaramaiah, the uncle of the plaintiff. The trial Court without verifying the documents has decreed the suit. On the basis of said decree, defendants are interfering with rights of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for declaration of his title and also for setting aside the compromise decree dated 18.02.2011, passed in O.S.No.1889/2008, and for consequential relief of injunction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 7. Defendant No.1 had appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that purchaser of the suit property in terms of deed of sale dated 24.04.1952, namely Munishamappa also known as Munishami son of Madappa is the father of the defendants and not the grandfather of the plaintiff as claimed. Munishamappa also known as Munishami son of Madappa is no where related to the plaintiff. The genealogical tree produced by the plaintiff is false and fabricated document. That Munishamappa also known as Munishami son of Madappa, the father of the defendants was the absolute owner of the suit property. After his demise defendants being his children have succeeded to his estate. Accordingly they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 8. That the defendant No.1 filed suit for partition in O.S.No.1889/2008 against respondents 2 and 3. After passing of decree in the said suit defendant No.1 has applied for transfer of khatha in his name to which the plaintiff has filed objection and the same is still pending consideration. The averments of defendants conceding to the ownership of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 plaintiff and entering into compromise in the proceedings before the Tahsildar on 30.07.2009 is denied as false. 9. That plaintiff who was working with them as a daily labourer taking advantage of the ignorance of the defendants obtained change of mutation record in his name. Hence sought for dismissal of suit. 10. Based on the pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is the son of Muniyappa son of Munishamappa @ Munishami ? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants No.1 to 7 filed OS.No. 1889/2008 without impleading this plaintiff fraudulently in order to cheat this plaintiff and hence the and Decree passed Judgment in OS.NO.1889/2008 in respect of the suit schedule property is liable to be set aside ? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants? 6. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule properties without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of permanent injunction? 8. Whether the defendants prove that this plaintiff was working as a daily labourer and he was aware of the disputes in the family of the defendants and by taking advantage of the same has got entered - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 his name in column No.12 of the pahani in respect0 of the suit schedule property ? 9. Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient? 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief claimed in the suit? 11 What order or decree?" 11. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Exhibited 46 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P46 and two witnesses have been examined as PW2 and PW3. Defendant No.1 examined his power of attorney holder as DW1 and Muniraju as DW-2 and Exhibited 19 documents marked as Exhibit-D1 to D19. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 8 and 9 partly in the affirmative and issue Nos.2 to 7 and 10 in the negative. Consequently dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved the present appeal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 in IA No.1/2026 to bring on record following documents: "1. ANNEXURE A- Sale deed dated 08.11.2019, registered on 08.04.2021 as Document No.HSK-1-00336-2021-22, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote. 2. ANNEXURE B- RTC w.r.t. Suit Schedule property for the years 2019-20 to 2021-22 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 3. ANNEXURE C- Plaint in O.S.264/2011, (re-numbered as No.1013/2018) pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hoskote 4. ANNEXURE D- Evidence in Chief in O.S.264/2011, (re- numbered as O.S. No.1013/2018) pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hoskote 5. ANNEXURE E Family Tree produced by Appellant herein in O.S.264/2011, (re-numbered as O.S. No.1013/2018) pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hoskote 6. ANNEXURE F Evidence in Chief in P & SC. No.37/2018 on the file of Hon'ble VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, at Bangalore 7. ANNEXURE G Family Tree produced by Appellant herein in P & SC. No.37/2018 on the file of Hon'ble VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, at Bangalore 8. ANNEXURE H-Fabricated RTCs w.r.t. Sy.No.3/2A, Banarahalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote produced as Exhibits in P & SC. No.37/2018 on the file of Hon'ble VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, at Bangalore 9. ANNEXURE J-Order dated 1/09/2018 passed in R.A 45(H) /11-12, before the Assistant Commissioner Doddabllapura Sub- Division at Doddaballapura, 10. ANNEXURE K-The charge sheet in Cr. No.242/2022 in Halasuru Police Station against the Appellant and others, obtained vide RTI." 13. The reasons assigned in the application is that respondent No.8 was not made as a party either in the present proceedings or before the trial Court. He was not aware of the pending proceedings. Since his vendors, defendant Nos.1 to 6 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 have sold the suit property and are not available, he had to obtain the documents on his own. Therefore, there was no possibility of him producing the documents before the trial Court. 14. Objection to said application has been filed by the appellant denying the averments made in the application as false. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff fairly submits that the document produced at Sl.No.3 (Annexure-C) which is a plaint in O.S.No.264/2011 and the document produced at Sl.No.5 (Annexure-E) which is a family tree produced in O.S.No.264/2011. Similarly document produced at Sl.No.6 (Annexure-F) which is affidavit of appellant/plaintiff herein filed by him in lieu of his examination in chief in a probate proceeding initiated in P&SC No.37/2018. 15. Learned counsel for appellant on instructions submits that he has no objection to take the said three documents on record. The same are accordingly taken on record and marked with the consent of learned counsel appearing for appellant/plaintiff and respondents as Ex.D20, Ex.D21, Ex.D22 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 respectively. Accordingly application I.A.1/2026 is allowed in part. 16. Sri.Babu, learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted the trial Court grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence more particularly compromise petition that was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants before the Tahsildar at Ex.P14. He submits that the said document came to be executed when the plaintiff had objected for mutation of names of the defendants in respect of the suit property. That upon being satisfied with regard to the claim of the plaintiff and his brothers about the suit property belonging to their grandfather, defendants have voluntarily executed the compromise at Exhibit-P14. That based on the said compromise, Tahsildar disposed of the said RRT proceedings as per Exhibit-P15, directing mutation of the name of plaintiff and that the said proceedings have attained finality. This material evidence placed on record remained unchallenged as such the defendants could not have continued to claim to be the owners of the suit property. That the sale of the suit property in favour of the Respondent No.8 during pendency of the suit is hit by doctrine of lis pendens. As such the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 Respondent No.8 would not get any right, title, interest over the property. He submits taking advantage of the similarity in the name respondent No.8 is trying to deprive the right, title and interest of the plaintiff to the suit property. Hence seeks for allowing of the appeal. 17. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 drawing attention of this Court more particularly to Ex.D20 which is plaint in O.S.No.264/2011 and document at Ex.D21 which is a genealogical tree furnished by the plaintiff in the said suit submits that there is irreconcilable contradictions in the documents produced by the plaintiff in the present suit and earlier suit in O.S.No.264/2011. He also refers to the contents of the affidavit filed by plaintiff/appellant herein in a proceedings in P&SC No.37/2018 which is now marked as Ex.D22 to contend that plaintiff is claiming that Chikkaramaiah his uncle had executed a Will in his favour. That the averments made in the present suit regarding said Chikkaramaiah having died issueless runs contrary to the document now marked as Ex.D21. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 18. Further drawing attention of this Court to the genealogical tree produced by the plaintiff in the present suit marked as Exhibit P2 and juxtaposing the same with the documents now produced at Ex.D21 he submits that in Ex.P2 the name of grandfather of plaintiff is shown as Munishamappa son of Madappa @ Venkatappa and there are no particulars/details of the legal heirs of Chikkaramaiah, the first son of said Munishami. Drawing attention of this Court to the documents now marked with consent, he submits that the name of the grandfather of the plaintiff in the genealogy marked as Exhibit-D21 is shown as Venkatappa and Chikkaramaiah is shown to have had a wife by name Munivenkatamma and three daughters named Krishnamma, Gauramma and Tippamma. He further takes the attention of this Court to document at Exhibit-P10, which is a death certificate produced and marked in the present suit by the plaintiff/appellant to evidence the date of death of Chikaramaiah, the first son of Munishamappa, wherein his father's name is shown as late Venkatappa. 19. Referring to document at Exhibit P12 which is the genealogy of defendants furnished the plaintiff and document - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 at Exhibit P12 is self-explanatory, wherein even according to plaintiff, the name of the father of the defendants is Munishamappa, son of Madappa. He refers to the deposition of PW2, who is supposed to be the nephew of the vendor of grandfather of the plaintiff, who in his deposition recorded on 24.06.2014 has admitted the name of the father of defendants is Munishamappa son of Madappa and that his uncle had sold the suit property in favour of said Munishamappa, son of Madappa and that ever since the date of purchase, defendants being the children of said Munishamappa, son of Madappa have been in possession of the land. 20. Thus, referring to these material evidence on record, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submitted that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish he being the grandson of Munishamappa, son of Madappa. That there is overwhelming evidence available on record to show that the plaintiff is the grandson of one Venkatappa and he has got nothing to do with the family of Munishamappa also known as Munishami son of Madappa. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 21. As regards the compromise learned counsel taking this Court through the document at Exhibit P14, submits that the said document admittedly does not have any description of the property and even if it were to be, it appears to be signed only by defendant No.2 and defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 has not admittedly signed the said document and the same would not be binding on him. Suit in O.S.No.1889/2008 was filed by defendant No.1, much prior to coming into existence of Exhibit P14. In all probability, Exhibit -P14 must have come into existence only to deny and deprive the right of defendant No.1. In any case, in the light of decree having been passed in the said suit filed by defendant No.1, the said compromise would not be of any use and effect. He submitted the said document at Exhibit P14 not having been executed and registered in the manner known to law, no right, title, interest can be claimed through and under said document by the plaintiff. Hence, he submits that trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the suit. 22. Heard and perused the records. 23. Points for consideration: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 (i)"Whether the plaintiff has proved that Munishamappa, S/o Madappa who was admittedly the owner of suit property was his grandfather and as such he inherited the suit property and has become absolute owner thereof? (ii) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff?" 24. The dispute in this suit essentially revolves around the claim and counter claim of the parties about their relationship with Munishamappa son of Madappa who is admittedly the purchaser of the suit property in terms of deed of sale dated 24.04.1952. 25. Plaintiff claims to be the grandson of one Munishamappa, son of Madappa @ Venkatappa. According to the plaintiff, the said Munishamappa, son of Madappa @ Venkatappa died leaving behind two sons by name Chikkaramaiah and Muniyappa. Plaintiff is one of the three sons of Muniyappa. This claim of the plaintiff being the grandson of Munishamappa, son of Madappa @ Venkatappa is seriously disputed by the defendants. 26. There are four genealogical trees, of which plaintiff has filed three, they are, Ex.P2, Ex.P12 and Ex.D21(produced by the plaintiff in O.S.No.264/2011 marked with consent in this - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 appeal). Ex.P2 and Ex.D21 pertain to the claim of the plaintiff of he being grandson of Munishami son of Madappa @ Venkatappa. Ex.P2 and Ex.D21 are extracted hereunder for immediate perusal. Exhibit P2-Genealogy of the plaintiff: ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë ªÀÄĤ±Á«Ä ¸À£ï D¥sï ªÀiÁzÀ¥Àà G..ªÉAPÀl¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw) aPÀÌvÁAiÀĪÀÄä (ºÉAqÀw ¥sÀªÀw) aPÀÌgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå (ªÀÄUÀ ¥sÀªÀw) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà (ªÀÄUÀ ¥sÀªÀw) gÁªÀÄPÀÌ (ºÉAqÀw 70 ªÀµÀð) 1) gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà 2) DAf£À¥Àà 3) ªÀÄĤPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà (ªÀÄUÀ 52 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀÄUÀ 50 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀÄUÀ 47 ªÀµÀð) Exhibit D21-Genealogy of the plaintiff produced in O.S.No.264/2011 ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë ªÉAPÀl¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw) aPÀÌvÁAiÀĪÀÄä (¥sÀªÀw) aPÀÌgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå (¥sÀªÀw) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw) ªÀÄĤªÉAPÀlªÀÄä (¥sÀªÀw) gÁªÀÄPÀÌ 75 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ PÀȵÀÚªÀÄä UËgÀªÀÄä w¥ÀàªÀÄä gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà DAf£À¥Àà ªÀÄĤPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) 58ªÀµÀð 45ªÀµÀð 43ªÀµÀð - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 27. In Ex.P2 name of grandfather of plaintiff is shown as Munishami son of Madappa @ Venkatappa. Whereas in Ex.D21 name of his grandfather is shown only as Venkatappa. 28. Ex.P12 is the genealogy furnished by the plaintiff pertaining to the family details of the defendants which reads as under: ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë ªÀÄĤ±ÁªÀÄ¥Àà ©£ï ªÀiÁzÀ¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw) ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä (¥sÀªÀw) ªÉAPÀlgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀiÁzÀ¥Àà ªÀÄĤªÀiÁzÀ¥Àà 70 ªÀµÀð (¥sÀªÀw) 60 ªÀµÀð ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä 50ªÀµÀð The aforesaid document Ex.P12 name of the father of defendants is shown as Munishamappa son of Madappa. No details of the names of children of Madappa are shown except names of four sons namely Venkataramaiah, Muniyappa, Madappa, Munimadappa. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 29. Ex.D2 is the genealogy furnished by the defendants which reads as under: ºÉÆç½ C£ÀÄUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë ªÀÄĤ±ÁªÀÄ¥Àà (¥ÁªÀw) ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä (¥ÁªÀw) ªÉAPÀlgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå(67) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà (60) ªÀÄĤªÀiÁzÀ¥Àà (¥ÁªÀw) ªÀiÁzÀ¥Àà (¥ÁªÀw) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ®è¥Àà(54) ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä (¥ÁªÀw) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ®èªÀÄä (50) AiÀÄ®è¥Àà (60) ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä(50) ªÀÄĤvÁAiÀĪÀÄä (48) ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä(55) gÀvÀߪÀÄä (43) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà (55) ªÀÄĤgÀvÀߪÀÄä(53) ªÀÄÄvÀÛªÀÄä(51) ªÉAPÀlªÀÄä(48) gÁªÀÄPÀÌ(46) gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ(32) ¸ÀÄgÉñï(28) ªÀÄAdļÀ (32) ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ (30) GªÀiÁ (28) ®°vÀ (45) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) ±ÀÄA¨sÀ(25) («ªÁºÀ«®è) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) ªÀÄÄvÀÛªÀÄä(40) ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ(35) gÀ«±ÀAPÀgÀ(28) ªÀÄĤPÀȵÀÚ(26) («ªÁ»vÉ) ªÀÄAdļÀ(30) ªÀÄĤgÁd(28) £ÁUÀgÁd (26) («ªÁ»vÉ) ¸ÀÄ£ÀAzÀªÀÄä(40) ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ(35) ¨sÁgÀw(28) zÉêÀgÁdÄ(26) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) In the aforesaid document at Exhibit D2 in addition to the four names of sons of Munishamappa son of Madappa as shown in Ex.P12, name of another son Muniyellappa and two daughters Muniyamma and Muniyellamma and details of their descendants are shown. 30. PW2- Sanjeevappa, who is stated to be the nephew of the vendor of grandfather of the plaintiff examined by the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 plaintiff himself in his cross-examination recorded on 24.06.2014 has stated as under: "ಪಾ ತಂ ೆ ೆಸರು ಮುಾಮಪ ಸ ಆ ಾದಪ ಎಂದೆ ಸ. ಸದ ನಮ ಕ ಪ ಸತ!ನು" ಮುಾಮಪ ಸ ಆ ಾದಪ ಅವ%ೆ ಾಾಟ ಾ'ರು(ಾ!ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ. ಸದ ಈ *ೇ,ನ ಪಾಗಳ/ ಅವರ ಮಕ ಳ/ಗಳ/ ಇದು1 ಖೕ ಾ' ಾ3ಂದ ಅವೇ 4ೋ'*ೊಳ/6! ಾ1ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ". 31. The deposition of this witness PW2 examined by the plaintiff who has spoken in favour of the defendant is in consonance with contents of Exhibit P12 and Exhibit D2. 32. The sale deed under which the plaintiff claims that his grandfather purchased the property is produced at Exhibit P1. The name of the purchaser as reflected in said document is Munishamappa son of Madappa. 33. Except Exhibit P2, plaintiff has admittedly produced no other document to show he or his brothers being the grandchildren of Munishamappa, son of Madappa also known as Venkatappa. Plaintiff has admitted to this aspect of the matter in his deposition recorded on 06.12.2013 wherein he has stated as under: - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 "4ಾನು 24ೇ ತರಗಯವೆ%ೆ ಒರು(ೆ!ೕ4ೆ. ನನ" ತಂ ೆಯ ೆಸರು ಮುಯಪ, ನನ" (ಾತನ ೆಸರು ಮುಾಮಪ < ೆಂಕಟಪ, ಮುಾಮಪ ಅವ%ೆ ೆಂಕಟಪ ಎಂಬ ೆಸರು ಇತು! ಎಂದು (ೋಸಲು ?ಾವ@ ೇ ಾಖAಾ *ೊBCಲD. ಮುಾಮಪ ಅವರ ಮಗ ಮುಯಪ ಎಂದು (ೋಸಲು ವಂಶವೃG *ೊBC ೆ1ೕ4ೆ. ವಂಶವೃG <ಟುC ಆ ಸಂಬಂಧ (ೋಸಲು Iೇೆ ?ಾವ@ ೇ ಾಖAಾ ಇಲD, ವಂಶವೃGವನು" ನಮ ೇJ*ೆ ಆKಾರದ LೕAೆ ಬೆಯAಾ3 ೆ. ಮುಾಮಪ < ೆಂಕಟಪ ಅವರು ನಮ ಅಜN ಅಲD ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. 4ಾನು ಆ,! ೊOೆಯುವ ಉ ೆ1ೕಶಂದ ಅವರ ೆಸರನು" ತQಾ3 ಬೆ, ೆ1ೕ4ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. ನನ" (ಾತ ೆಂಕಟಪ ಅವ%ೆ ಮುಯಪ ಮತು! ಕ ಾಮಯR ಎಂಬ ಇಬSರು ಮಕ ಳ/ ಇರು(ಾ!ೆ. ಕ ಾಮಯR ಅವ%ೆ ಒಬS ಗಂಡು ಮಗ ಇರು(ಾ!4ೆ. ಅವ%ೆ ೆಂಡ ಸಹ ಇಲD. ಅವರು 19984ೇ ಇ,ಯVD ಮರಣ ೊಂರು(ಾ!ೆ. 4ಾನು ಹುಟುCವ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ಅವರು ಮರಣ ೊಂರು(ಾ!ೆ." 34. Another document produced by the plaintiff is the death certificate of Chikkaramaiah produced at Exhibit P10, who according to the plaintiff was the first son of Munishamappa son of Madappa. Perusal of the same however indicates his father's name to be late Venkatappa. Plaintiff himself has further admitted in his deposition recorded on 17.01.2014 that the defendants 1 to 7 are the children of Munishamappa son of Madappa and the name of father of Chikkaramaiah is shown as Venkatappa in his death certificate. Relevant portions of the deposition is as under: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 "1 ಂದ 74ೇ ಪಾಗಳ/ ಮುಾಮಪ < ಾದಪ ಅವರ ಮಕ ಳ/ ಎಂದೆ ಸ. :26.04.1952ರVD ಈ ಸತ!ನು" ಮುಾಮಪ < ಾದಪ ಖೕ ಾ' ಾ1ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD, ಕಯಪತದVD ಮುಾಮಪ < ಾದಪ ಖೕ ಾ'ರುವ@ ಾ3 ಬೆ, ಾ1ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸುಳ/6 ಇರುತ! ೆ. Zೕ%ೆ ಸತ!ನು" ಖೕ ಾ'ದ ನಂತರ ಅದು ಅವರ ಮಕ J%ೆ ೋ3ರುತ! ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. 4ಾನು ಈ ಪಕರಣದVD ಕ ಾಮಯR ಅವರ ಮರಣಸಮಥ\4ಾ ಪತ *ೊBC ೆ1ೕ4ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ. ಕ ಾಮಯR ಅವರ ತಂ ೆ ೆಸರು ೆಂಕಟಪ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ ಾ3 ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸ. ಕ ಾಮಯR ಮತು! ಮುಯಪನ ತಂ ೆ ೆಸರು ೆಂಕಟಪ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. ಕ ಾಮಯR ಮತು! ಮುಯಪನ ತಂ ೆ ೆಸರು ಮುಾಮಪ ಎಂದು (ೋಸಲು ?ಾವ@ ೇ ಾಖAೆ *ೊBCಲD. ಾಾ ಸತು! ಮುಾಮಪ ಅವ%ೆ ೇರುವ@ದನು" ದುರುಪ]ೕಗಪ',*ೊಂಡು ಮುಾಮಪ ೆಂಕಟಪ ಎಂದು ಸುಳ/6 ಪQಾದ4ೆ ಾ' ಸುಳ/6 ಪQಾಸು! ೆ1ೕ4ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. ಾಾ ಹೂಡುವ ಸಂದಭ\ದVD ತಹ,ೕAಾ1_ 4ಾR?ಾಲಯದVD *ೇಸು ಇರVಲD ಎಂದೆ ಸ. ಸದ ಪಾಗಳ/ ರೂ.3000/- ಹಣ ಪOೆದ ಬ%ೆ` ಾಖAೆ ಇಲD, ಆದೆ, ೆಂಕಟಾಮಯR ಅವರ ಸಮುಖದVD ೕ'ದು1 ಇರುತ! ೆ. ಾಾ ಹೂಡುವ ಸಂದಭ\ದVD ನಮ ೆಸ%ೆ ?ಾವ@ ೇ aಾ(ೆ ಆ3ರVಲD. ಾb ಮುಂದುವೆದು ಪಾಗಳ/ ಸತಃ aಾ(ೆ%ೆ ಅd\ ಸVD,ದು1, ನಂತರ ನನ" ೆಸ%ೆ ಾಖV,ರು(ಾ!ೆ. ಾಾ ಸ!%ೆ 4ಾನು ಕಂ ಾಯ ಕBC ೆ1ೕ4ೆ. .e.20ರVD ಾಾ ಸ!ನ ಸೆ\ ನಂಬರು ಇಲD ಎಂದೆ ಇರಬಹುದು. ಅದರVD aಾ(ಾ ನಂಬರು ದ1Aಾ3 ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD, .e.21ರVDಯೂ fದಲು ಇದ1 ಸೆ\ ನಂಬರು ೊOೆದು ಾg ಸೆ\ ನಂಬರು ಬೆಯAಾ3 ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. .e.20, 21, 22 ಾಾ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟCದ1ಲD. ಈ ಪಕರಣ*ಾ 3 ಸೃhCಸAಾ3 ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. ಾಾ ಸತು! 1 ಂದ 7 ರವೆ%ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟCದು1 ಅದನು" ೊOೆದು*ೊಳ/6ವ ಸಲುಾ3 ಸುಳ/6 *ೇಸು ಾg ೆ1ೕ4ೆ ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD. 4ಾನು ಮುಾಮಪ ಅವರ fಮಗ ಅಲD ೇ ಇರುವ@ದಂದ ನನ%ೆ ?ಾವ@ ೇ ಹಕು ಇಲD ಎಂದೆ ಸಯಲD." 35. The aforesaid deposition of the plaintiff- PW1, PW2, contents of Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P10 death certificate make it clear that Munishamappa son of Madappa the purchaser of suit property under the deed of sale sanded 24/26.04.1952 -Ex P1 was indeed the father of the defendants which fact further stands corroborated by the document Exhibit D21, namely - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 Genealogical Tree produced by none other than the plaintiff in another parallel proceedings in O.S.No.264/2011. 36. Thus it becomes clear that except Exhibit P2 nowhere else the name of the grandfather of the plaintiff is shown as Munishamappa son of Madappa. The other documents produced by the plaintiff consistently reflect name of his grandfather is Venkatappa. Merely on the basis of Exhibit P2 plaintiff cannot claim to be the grandson of Munishamappa son of Madappa. 37. The other evidence which is heavily relied upon by the plaintiff is the compromise petition at Exhibit P14. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent, the said document does not contain the details of the property. In any event, the said document admittedly signed only by defendant Nos.2 and 3 while Munishamappa son of Madappa, passed away leaving behind seven children as noted above in Exhibit D2. Suit in O.S.No.1889/2008 was filed by Muniyellappa against his brothers and sisters namely, Venkataramaiah, Muniyappa, Muniyamma, Madappa, Muniyamma and - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10053 RFA No. 1816 of 2017 Muniyellamma. Exhibit P12 furnished by the plaintiff as already noted contains only the names of Venkataramaiah, Muniyappa, Madappa and Munimadappa. Name of Muniyellappa is conspicuously absent. This perhaps as rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.8 is to get over the effect of suit in O.S.No.1889/2008 filed by Muniyellappa for partition and to make it appear that he was not the son of Munishamappa son of Madappa as shown in Exhibit P12. 38. This Court having come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish he being the grandson of Munishamappa son of Madappa, as rightly taken note of by the trial court, reliance placed on by the plaintiff on Exhibit P14 is of no consequence. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal fails. Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 09.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.723/2011 by the trial Court is confirmed. Pending applications if any are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14