- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2010 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. KALLAMMA W/O ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS AGRICULTURIST & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/o ARASANAGATTA, KASABA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI A.SWAMY S/o HANUMANTHAPPA AGE:MAJOR AGRICULTURIST R/o B.DURGA HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. SRI A.E.SHEKARAPPA S/o ESHWARAPPA AGE:MAJOR 3. SRI CHANNAPPA S/o MARULAPPA AGE:MAJOR Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 4. SMT RUDRANI W/o A.E.SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESONDENTS No.2 TO 4 ARE R/o ARASANAGATTE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577526. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDATH V.R., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.9.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.12/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2004 PASSED IN O.S.No.258/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) HOLALKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gurudath V.R., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Spoorthy Hegde N., counsel for the respondent. 2. Present second appeal came to be admitted at the first instance on the following substantial question of law: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 <Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit and the appeal by recording perverse findings?= 3. Later on the application filed by the petitioner, two more substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court as under by Order dated 07.04.2026: <(i) Whether both the Courts right in law in not drawing statutory presumption as provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in respect of the entries made in the revenue records while passing the impugned judgment and decree? (ii) Whether both the Courts right in law in disbelieving the entries made in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.8 though there is no contrary evidence on record in respect of the entries?= 4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 4.1. Appellant being the plaintiff, filed a suit for bare junction in respect of the following property hereinafter referred to as suit property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 <Dry and irrigated land bearing Sy.Nos.42/1, 44/1, 44/2 and 44/3 totally measuring 2.39 guntas situated in Arasanaghatta, Kasaba Hobli, Holalkere Taluk and commonly bounded by: East : Gudihindala Basappa West : Govt. Cart Track North : Rajakaluve South : -do- 4.2. Appellant claimed right over the suit property by virtue of a sale deed executed by holder of the land based on the khata vide Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 in different survey numbers, totally to the extent of 3 acres 12 guntas by the husband of the plaintiff. Later on after the death of the husband of the plaintiff, for the year 1985-86, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1992-93 the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the plaintiff. 4.3. In the meantime, there was a sale made by the husband of the plaintiff in favour of Borappa S/o Palaiah and Yele Eshwarappa S/o Giriyappa on 16.06.1958 from whom Hanumanthappa has purchased the schedule land on 30.07.1964 to the extent of about 36 guntas, (lands were purchased in terms of yards) revenue entries were mutated in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 the name of Hanumanthappa to the extent of the purchase made by him. 4.4. Hanumanthappa said to have executed a registered Will in the name of defendant No.4 and thereby defendant No.4 became the owner of the property. 4.5. Admittedly, plaintiff did not mention the sale executed by her husband in favour of Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa who inturn sold the same land to Hanumanthappa and filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the scheduled property, claiming that she is in possession of the property. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons defendants entered appearance denying the plaint averments and stated that Hanumanthappa purchased the property from Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa who had purchased 36 guntas of land from husband of the plaintiff. Said sale deed is also placed on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 6. They further contended that after the sale they are in possession of the property which was subject matter of the sale and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues dismissed the suit of the plaintiff noting that plaintiff failed to establish that she was in possession of the suit property. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal in RA No.12/2004. 9. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of the appeal. 10. Thereafter plaintiff is before this Court in this regular second appeal. 11. Sri B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel for the appellant with vehemence contented that both the Courts have not taken into consideration that even assuming the sale made in favour of Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa by the husband of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining land, plaintiff is in possession of the property and suit should have been decreed. 12. He would further contend that there was no mutation entries in the name of Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 soon after the sale effected by the husband of the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff continued in possession of the suit property. 13. He also contends that both the Courts failed to note that presumption would be available in respect of the revenue documents and in the absence of contra evidence placed on record to rebut the presumption available to the plaintiff, suit ought to have been decreed and sought for allowing the appeal. 14. Per contra, counsel for the respondent would contend that in the cross examination of the plaintiff, there is a specific admission that plaintiff does not know what is the extent that has been sold to Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa by her husband. 15. He points out that PW1 has further admitted in her cross examination that she has stopped cultivating the land. He also points out that there is a clear admission in the cross examination of PW1 that she is not aware of extent of land which are covered under four record of rights placed before the Court. 16. Therefore, there is a dispute as to the very identity of the suit land and rough sketch marked at Ex.P11 does not depict the suit property correctly inasmuch as land sold to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa by the husband of the plaintiff which in turn purchased by Hanumanthappa is not even shown in the sketch and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 17. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, as per Exs.P7 to P10, husband of the plaintiff is the owner of lands in Sy.No.44/1 measuring 12 guntas, Sy.No.44/2 measuring 12 guntas, Sy.No.44/3 measuring 26 guntas and in the land bearing No.42 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas in all 3 acres 12 guntas. 19. During the lifetime of the husband of the plaintiff, he has sold the property in three different survey numbers to Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa. Same land was subsequently purchased by Sri Hanumanthappa who is the father of defendant No.1 by virtue of a registered sale deed in the year 1964. 20. Pertinently those sale deeds are not even mentioned in the plaint and there is suppression of material facts. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 21. Plaintiff in her cross-examination categorically admits that she does not know the extent of land covered under Exs.P1 to P4 which were the record of rights extracts. 22. Further, she specifically admits that she does not know the extent of land purchased by her husband and original sale deed is in her house and she has no impediment to place it before the Court as part of the evidence but the same was not placed on record. 23. She denies the sale deed executed by her husband in favour of Hanumanthappa in the year 1964. 24. She also admits that she has objected for transfer of revenue entries in the year 1992 as Hanumanthappa had executed a will in favour of defendant No.4. 25. She denies that between the year 1964 to 1992, revenue entries were in the name of Hanumanthappa or his vendors. 26. In her further examination-in-chief, she produced the certified copies of the sale deed wherein her husband has acquired the suit properties. Rough sketch was also prepared and marked as Ex.P11 to depict the suit property. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 27. In the cross-examination of PW2, he also categorically admits that he does not know to which extent plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit property. 28. As such, there is no material evidence on record which would conclusively establish as to what is the portion of the land which is in lawful occupation of the plaintiff which is a sine qua non for decreeing the suit for permanent injunction. 29. In fact the answer elicited in the cross examination that she stopped cultivating the land would make it clear that evidence of PW2 is only with an intention to plug the loophole in the case of the plaintiff. 30. When plaintiff herself has categorically admitted that she stopped cultivation, PW2 trying to improve upon the case that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land by cultivating the same cannot be countenanced in law. 31. Since all the issues were required to be established by the plaintiff that she is in lawful possession of the property and there was an interference, defence evidence would get into insignificance when the suit is one for permanent injunction. 32. Nevertheless, defendants have undertaken to place the material evidence on record by examining Sri Shekarappa - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 as DW1, Sri Jagdeesh, Sri Jayadevappa and Smt. Rudrani (defendant No.4) as DW2 to 4. 33. Detailed cross examination of D.Ws.2 to 4 did not yield any positive material so as to improve the case of the plaintiff inasmuch as suggestions made to them that plaintiff is in possession of the entire suit property were denied by them. 34. In other words, there is no material evidence placed on record by the plaintiff to establish that she is in possession of the suit property in entirety and defendants have interfered with her possession. 35. Thus, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 36. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that revenue entries for a long period in the absence of any title deed could raise a presumption that the name of the person mentioned in the revenue records is the owner of the property. But, in the case on hand, such a presumption cannot be drawn inasmuch as plaintiff is claiming the right based on the title deeds marked at Ex.P7 to Ex.P10. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 37. Likewise, defendant has placed the contra title in respect of 36 guntas of the land by virtue of the sale affected by the Husband of the plaintiff in favour of Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa who inturn sold to Hanumanthappa from who defendant is claiming title to 36 guntas of land by way of will. 38. Thus, the first substantial question of law raised on 07.04.2026 will have to be answered against the appellant. 39. Likewise, in view of the title deeds being placed on record and the admission of the plaintiff in her cross examination as to the extent of land as discussed supra, second substantial questions of law is also invariably to be answered against the appellant. 40. However, an observation needs to be made that defendants cannot claim an inch more than what has been sold by husband of the plaintiff in their favour by virtue of the sale deed vide Ex.D1. 41. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the remaining land surveyed in respect of the remaining portion of the land which is not subject matter of the sale by her husband in favour of Borappa and Yele Eshwarappa and subsequently in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21678 RSA No. 338 of 2010 favour of Hanumanthappa and enjoy the same and defendant cannot interfere with that property. 42. With that observation, answering the substantial questions of law in the negative, following order is passed: ORDER Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 75