- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. RAYASAM PRAMEELA, W/O LATE R.RAMESH, R/AT NO.1406/A, 2ND STAGE, D BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. REP. BY HER SPA HOLDER, MR.RAYASAM SRAVA, S/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YARS, RESIDING AT NO.17, BEHIND MUSSANJAY OLDAGE HOME, GNANAJYOTHINAGAR, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DURGA BAI @ DIKKAMMAAL W/O LATE M.DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI D RAMESH BABU, S/O LATE M.DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SMT D SHIVAGAMI, D/O LATE M.DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 4. SMT D DEVAKI D/O LATE M.DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 5. SMT D USHA, D/O LATE M.DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.213, PERIAUMANI VILLAGE AND POST, VIA ANEKAL PERIMARAM STREET, VELLORE TALUK-632101. 6. SRI M P VENKATESH MURTHY, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O MALLAHAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWATHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH - 560090. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRADEEP H S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, R6 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 ORDER XLI OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.5386/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDL.CITY AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DECREEING 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 ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 in O.S.No.5386/2005 on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 3. In terms of the aforementioned judgment and decree, the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction is decreed and plaintiffs are declared as the owner of 'B' schedule property and it is held that the sale deed dated 14.05.1993 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendants are restrained from interfering plaintiffs' peaceful possession of 'A' schedule property. Defendant No.1 is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant the possession of 'B' schedule property. Defendant No.1 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1/ appellant would urge before the Court that defendants contested the matter in respect of 'B' schedule property based - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 on registered sale deed dated 14.05.1993 executed by defendant No.2 son of Puttaswamappa. It is his further contention that the plaintiffs are claiming right over the property based on registered sale deed dated 27.04.2000 in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties executed by defendant No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/defendant No.1 would urge that the appellant is only aggrieved by the decree in respect of 'B' schedule property which directs delivery of possession to the plaintiffs. It is his submission that though defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement and cross-examined the plaintiffs, to substantiate his contention in the written statement, he could not lead evidence before the Trial Court as defendant No.1 was residing abroad and the decree is virtually an exparte decree. 6. Learned counsel would also submit that the plaintiffs are claiming title of the property based on the registered sale deed dated 27.04.2000 whereas defendant No.1 is claiming title over 'B' schedule property based on registered sale deed dated 14.05.1993 sold by the same vendor who - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 claims to have sold the property to the plaintiffs, as such, the person who has earlier sale deed is to be declared as the owner. Since the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 is dated 14.05.1993 the decree could not have been passed in respect of 'B' schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. To substantiate the contention that defendant No.1 was residing abroad when the case was posted for evidence, learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.1 would invite the attention of the Court to the additional document under Article XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the appellant has produced the copy of the visa/passport. In addition, the sale deed dated 14.05.1993, is also produced. Appellant has also produced some other documents relating to the aforementioned property to urge his contention that he is in possession of the property. 8. Learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent No.1 would urge that the defendant No.1 has not shown due diligence while conducting the case. Though he has cross-examined the plaintiffs. Though the case is listed for defendants' evidence, on 6 occasions, defendant No.1 has not chosen to lead - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 evidence on 2 dates out of those 6 dates on which the case was adjourned for evidence of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was very much available in India and could have led evidence on those 2 dates. In addition, it is urged that assuming that defendant No.1 was abroad when the case was posted for evidence, the defendant No.1 could have executed a power of attorney to lead evidence on his behalf. The application is filed before this Court only to delay the hearing, as such, he would urge that the appeal has to be dismissed. 9. It is also his further submission that since defendant No.1 has not made out a valid ground to remand the matter, the remand cannot be granted and adverse inference has been drawn against defendant No.1 for not producing the so-called sale deed dated 14.05.1993 in his evidence when the case was posted for evidence. 10. It is also urged by the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 that defendant No.1 has contested the matter by urging a contention that there is no need for the defendant No.1 to lead evidence as the issues have been framed casting burden on the plaintiffs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 12. The following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether appellant/defendant No.1 has made out a case to remand the matter on the premise that he was prevented from contesting the matter by leading evidence before the Trial Court for sufficient cause? (b) Whether the appellant/defendant No.1 has made out a case for production of additional documents? 13. It is to be noticed that the suit is one for declaration of title and for possession. Initially, the suit was one for declaration and injunction wherein the plaintiff claimed that he is the owner and in possession of 'A' schedule property. Later, he moved an application to amend the plaint on the premise that his tenant who was occupying portion of the 'A' schedule property was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff then seeks possession of that portion of the property and said property is described as 'B' schedule. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 14. Admittedly, the plaintiff is claiming title of the property based on registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.06.1979 and also a registered sale deed dated 27.04.2000 said to have been executed by defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is claiming right over the property based on registered sale deed dated 14.05.1993. Thus, both parties are claiming right over the properties based on the registered sale deed said to have been executed by son of Puttaswamappa. Admittedly, Puttaswamappa was the owner of the property. The question is which transaction is valid. 15. It is noticed from the judgment that learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has raised a contention that all the issues have been framed casting the burden on the plaintiffs, as such the defendants need not lead evidence. This would give an impression that defendant No.1 carried an impression that there was no need for him to lead evidence, and he deliberately stayed away when case is posted for evidence. 16. It is quite possible that since defendant No.1 did not lead evidence, the contention must have been raised - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 stating that there is no need for defendant No.1 to lead evidence to non-suit the plaintiffs. That does not mean that defendant No.1 deliberately withheld himself from appearing before the Court and leading the evidence. 17. What is required to be seen is whether defendant No.1 was staying abroad when the case was listed for evidence of defendant No.1. The additional documents placed before the Court would indicate that defendant No.1 was staying abroad from 29.07.2017 to December 2017. The suit was decided on 30.11.2017. 18. It is to be noticed that when defendant No.1 was residing in India, the case was listed for his evidence on two occasions, that is on 05.07.2017 and 20.07.2017. Merely because defendant No.1 did not appear on those two dates, it cannot be held that he deliberately withheld himself from appearing before the Court. It is a suit in respect of immoveable property where defendant No.1 is claiming right based on a registered sale deed of 1993. Whether the sale deed is valid or not is a question to be decided by the Trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 19. Since it is established that defendant No.1 was residing abroad at least on 5 dates when the case was posted for evidence, the Court is of the view that the matter can be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in respect of 'B' schedule property. There is no need to interfere with the judgment and decree in respect of 'A' schedule property. 20. It is also required to be noticed that the defendant No.1 is responsible for the situation. He could have appeared before the Trial Court on 05.07.2017 or on 20.07.2017 to lead evidence. He has not chosen to. Since he was abroad, he could have executed a power of attorney to lead evidence in support of his case. He has not done so. However, that cannot be the basis to confirm the judgment and decree when the decree is in respect of immoveable property and that too in a situation where defendant No.1 is claiming right over the property based on a registered sale deed said to have been executed earlier to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, and when the plaintiff is seeking possession. 21. It is also required to be noticed that the plaintiff is claiming right over the property based on a registered general - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 power of attorney said to have been executed earlier to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 22. Under the circumstances, the Court is of the view that appellant/defendant No.1 has made out a case for production of additional documents and when the production of documents are allowed, the matter requires to be remitted to the Trial Court. 23. Though the matter is required to be remanded, it is to be noticed that this situation has arisen because of inaction on the part of defendant No.1 who could have led evidence before the Trial Court by exercising due diligence. In the process, the plaintiff is put to inconvenience. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have to be suitably compensated. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2005, defendant No.1 shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. Payment of costs is a condition precedent for contesting the matter. 25. Hence, the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3577 RFA No. 397 of 2018 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 in O.S.No.5386/2005 on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru are set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (iv) Both parties are permitted to lead evidence. (v) It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (vii) It is also made clear that appellant/defendant No.1 shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. (viii) Both parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the suit. (ix) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 02.02.2026. (x) Registry to return the Trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22