- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2080 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. N RAMA RANI, W/O LATE H.S. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2 . SRI SATVIK SUNDRESH M.S., S/O LATE H.S. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BOTH APPELLANT NOs.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT HANAKERE, SIDDAPPA FARM HOUSE, VALAGEERHALLI ROAD, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. &APPELLANTS [BY SRI T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE] AND: 1 . SMT. V K TEJA, D/O KARADIGOWDA, W/O MASTIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT THYLOOR VILLAGE, ATHAGUR HOBLI, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 2 . VIJAYA BANK MADDUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MADDUR, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 531 428. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI MURALI N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.4/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.339/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 20.11.2025 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, in RA no.4/2020 dismissing appeal and confirming judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed by IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, in OS no.339/2011. 2. Sri T Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for appellants submitted, appeal was filed by legal representatives of defendant no.1 in OS no.339/2011 seeking relief of declaration of ownership and for permanent injunction in respect of agricultural wet land bearing Sy.no.19/2, measuring 4.03 guntas (including 0.4 guntas of kharab) situated at Mobbalagere village, Maddur Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property', for short). 3. In plaint, it was stated suit property was absolute property of plaintiff. Land measuring extent of 6 Acres 12 guntas was granted by Land Tribunal, Maddur, in proceedings no.KIRF.840/74-75 on 04.03.1976. On 16.01.1984, Tahsildar, Maddur, had issued Form no.10 and name of plaintiff was mutated in revenue records. In year 1984-85, plaintiff - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 consented for change of Khata in respect of portion of said land i.e. suit property in favour of defendant no.1 for purpose of further processing of revenue proceedings, payment of taxes, etc., as plaintiff was an illiterate and defendant no.1 was worldly wise. It was stated, defendant no.1 had collected money for payment of taxes from plaintiff. But, in first week of August, 2011, concerned Village Accountant informed about plaintiff being in arrears of land revenue. On obtaining copy of Record of Right ('RoR'), plaintiff noticed that defendant no.1 had not only failed to remit taxes, but also encumbered property by raising loan from defendant no.2-Bank, which was without authority or knowledge of plaintiff, who was rightful owner of land. He also noticed illegal mutation entries in collusion with revenue officials. Evasive reply by defendant no.1 on enquiry gave rise to cause of action for suit. 4. On service of suit summons, defendant no.1 appeared and filed written statement denying plaint averments in toto and specifically stating that plaintiff was tenant under one HK Veerannagowda in respect of 7 Acres 6 guntas comprising Sy.no.17/1c, 17/2, 19/a and 19/5 in LRF - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 no.840/74-75. It was stated, since plaintiff was maternal uncle of father of defendant no.1, he had paid upset price on grant of occupancy rights. Thereafter, plaintiff had executed Form no.20 transferring extent of 5-03 Acres in favour of defendant no.1. Out of same, he had sold extent of 1 Acre in favour of Shivaramu S/o Chennegowda under registered Sale Deed dated 29.11.1996. Remaining 2 Acres 3 guntas, plaintiff transferred in favour of his wife Smt.Jayalakshmamma, who in turn, sold it to brother of defendant no.1. Thus, plaintiff did not retain any extent of land, but had sought to lay claim after much delay. It was stated, in order to improve land, defendant no.1 had obtained financial assistance from defendant no.2, dug bore- well, installed irrigation pump-set raised sugarcane crop apart from planting coconut, teak and silver oak trees. It was asserted that since 1984, defendant no.1 was in lawful and settled possession over suit property to knowledge of whole world i.e. for more than 30 years and perfected title by way of adverse possession. Thus, suit claim is time-barred and unsustainable. 5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants? 3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as claimed? 5) What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE 1) Whether defendant proves that he perfected his title over the suit schedule property by way of law of adverse possession? 6. To substantiate his case, plaintiff examined Smt.Meena (Power of Attorney Holder) as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P12. In rebuttal, defendant no.1 examined himself and four others as DWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D84. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1, 2 and 4 in affirmative, issue no.3 and additional issue no.1 in negative and issue no.5 by decreeing suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 7. Aggrieved defendant no.1 filed RA no.4/2020 on various grounds, based on which appellate Court framed following point for its consideration: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree is illegal, perverse and requires interference by this Court?" 8. And answering point in negative, it dismissed appeal, leading to file this second appeal. 9. It was submitted, Ex.D13 - Sale deed dated 29.11.1996 and Exs.D15 to D31 - RoRs disclosed defendant's possession over suit property from 1984 onwards. Said entries attracted presumption in law under Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 ('KLR Act', for short). During cross- examination, PW.1 admitted delivery of possession of suit property to defendant no.1. Further first appellate Court noted submission of counsel for plaintiff that defendant was in permissive possession of suit property. These materials substantiated possession of defendant over suit property. Despite same, relief sought by plaintiff in suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction against - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 interference with possession, instead of seeking consequential relief of possession. 10. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantha (Dead) Thr. Legal representatives v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (dead) Thr. Lrs. reported in (2024) 5 SCC 282, held suit for bare declaration without consequential relief of possession, when plaintiff was out of possession would be barred under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, ('SR Act', for short). Said ratio was followed by this Court in case of Somayya Belchada v. Santhosh & Ors. reported in 2025:KHC:20332. It was submitted, both Courts had ignored said material while arriving at respective conclusions. Consequently, findings were contrary to material on record and perverse. On said ground submitted, following substantial questions of law arose for consideration of this Court: "i. Whether both Courts erred in not noticing that plaintiff's suit was barred under Section 34 of SR Act for failure to seek consequential relief? ii. Whether both Courts erred in ignoring presumption in favour of revenue entries under Section 133 of KLR Act? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 11. Learned counsel sought for answering same in favour of defendant and allow appeal. 12. On other hand, Sri SM Chandrashekar, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Murali N, advocate for plaintiff opposed appeal. At outset, it was submitted, appeal was against concurrent findings on facts and did not involve any substantial question of law. Therefore there was no scope for interference. 13. It was submitted, there was no dispute about plaintiff being owner of suit property by virtue of order of grant of occupancy by Land Tribunal. It was submitted, plaintiff was an illiterate, while defendant was his relative, educated and worldly-wise. Therefore, plaintiff had permitted defendant to perform required processes for confirmation of grant such as payment of Land Revenue etc. There was never transfer or assignment of any right over suit property and plaintiff continued in possession and cultivation of land. It was submitted, all acts done by defendant were for and on behalf of plaintiff and defendant could not claim about accrual of any right by virtue of same. It was submitted, defendant was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 claiming right under alleged signature of plaintiff on application in Form no.20 submitted to village accountant for entry of name of defendant over suit property. It was submitted, without execution of any deed validly conferring any right over suit property, entry of name of defendant in revenue records would be contrary to law. Thus, plaintiff as owner of suit property was entitled to maintain suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his title/possession and there would be no need for seeking possession. 14. And when plaintiff noticed that defendant had acted beyond authorisation, got his name mutated in revenue records, obtained loan from defendant no.2 and encumbered suit property, he issued notice to defendant and thereafter filed suit. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel relied on ratio in Sham Lal v. Rajinder Kumar, reported in 1994 SCC OnLine Del 476, laid down by High Court of Delhi and by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370, that possession of servant or caretaker at - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 instance of owner would not amount to actual possession. It would be possession of owner. It would be possession of owner. Hence, defendant's claim to be in possession would be contrary to law and sought for answering substantial questions of law against defendant and dismiss appeal. 15. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and copies of pleadings and deposition made available for perusal by learned counsel for defendant (appellant). 16. This appeal is by defendant against concurrent findings in suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Substantial questions of law proposed to arise for consideration are, when plaintiff admitted defendant to be in possession (permissive possession), whether suit for declaration of title without seeking consequential relief of possession and instead seeking for permanent injunction restraining interference would be barred under Section 34 of SR Act and whether entries in revenue records in favour of defendant for more than 12 years (i.e. from 1984 till filing of suit in 2011) would attract - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 presumption under Section 133 of KLR Act and confer title by adverse possession in favour of defendant. 17. At outset, it is seen that there is no dispute about plaintiff having been conferred with occupancy rights in respect of 7 Acres 6 guntas of land bearing Sy.no.19/2 of Mobbalagere village, Maddur Taluk, by Land Tribunal by order in LRF no.840/1974-75, and about suit property being a part of granted land. Thus both Courts would be justified in granting decree of declaration of title in favour of plaintiff. 18. While plaintiff claims that due to his illiteracy, he had asked defendant to take care by paying land revenue etc. and had not authorized defendant to encumber land or borrow loan on it; defendant claims that after grant of occupancy rights by Land Tribunal, father of defendant had contributed money for payment of premium of land and therefore, plaintiff had executed Form no.20 transferring 5 Acres 3 guntas of land to defendant. Though, plaintiff had sold extent of 1 Acre out of said land in favour of Shivaramu on 29.11.1996, remaining land i.e. suit property had remained with defendant, which he was cultivating, made improvements borrowing loan from - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 defendant no.2, planted valuable trees etc. As such he was in settled possession and therefore, suit for bare declaration without consequential relief of declaration would not be maintainable. 19. While passing impugned judgments, both Courts held defendant was at best in permissive possession of suit property and without any independent right over suit property and therefore, plaintiff was entitled for relief sought for in suit. Though, learned counsel for defendant seeks to rely on ratio laid down in Somayya and Vasantha's cases (supra), it is seen, claim of possession in Vasantha's case (supra), was based on a deed of settlement, while in Somayya's case (supra), claim was based on bequeathal, unlike in present case, where it is based on mere signing of Form No.20 of KLR Act. 20. Form 20 prescribed under Rule 62 and 64 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, is for seeking mutation of entries in revenue records on acquisition of rights in land as provided in Section 128 of KLR Act. Section 128 of KLR Act specifically mentions succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any right - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of land or assignee of rent or revenue thereof being recognized for effecting mutation. 21. In other words, filing of Form no.20 would be consequential to transfer of any of rights enlisted above and cannot be a document of transfer by itself. Claim of transfer of ownership right under Form no.20, would run counter to Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On same, analogy, Form no.20 cannot be said to grant/confer right of possession. As contended by learned counsel for defendant as well as noted by both Courts, defendant may, at best be held to be in permissive possession as would entitle any protection. Consequently, both Courts would be justified in granting decree of injunction against interference on noticing acts of defendant claiming ownership/possessory right over suit property amounted to interference. 22. Further, it is settled law that presumption under Section 133 of KLR Act is rebuttable. By virtue of defendant's claim for acquisition of title by adverse possession, there is deemed admission of ownership right of plaintiff. In absence of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2022 RSA No. 2080 of 2025 defendant establishing acquisition of any right over suit property, presumption would stand rebutted. In view of above neither substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. Consequently, Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at stage of admission itself. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg,AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52