- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6093 OF 2011 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581206. 2. GANGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA KABBUR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581206. 3. BASAVARAJ S/O. SIDDAPPA KABBUR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581206. 4. SMT. BASAVANNEVVA W/O. BASAPPA BELAVADI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BUDARKATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM, PIN-591104. 5. SMT. NEEVAWWA W/O. BASAPA KADAKOL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HANAMANAHAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM, PIN-591126. 6. SMT. BANGAREWWA W/O. SANGAPPA PADIJOLAD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 R/O. DADIBAI SAPPADLA, TQ: RAMADURGA, DIST: BELGUAM, PIN-591114. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANAND BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. SADEPPA HULAMANI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O. SADEPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, PIN: 581206. 3. MALLAPPA S/O. SADEPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. 4. ULAVAPPA S/O. SADEPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. 5. TIPPANNA S/O. GADIGEPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. 6. NEELAPPA S/O. GADIGEPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. 7. SHANKARAPPA S/O. GADIGEPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 8. VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. GADIGEPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. 9. ASHOK S/O. GANGAPPA SANKANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UPPINABETAGERI, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN: 581206. 10. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. YALLAPPA SANKANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY LR’S RESPONDENT NO.9. 11. BSAVVA W/O. GANGAPPA SANKANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY LR’S RESPONDENT NO.9. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGAPPA TUKKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8; SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R7; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.9 IS SERVED.) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2011, PASSED IN R.A.NO.142/2009, PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK-I, AT: DHARWAD AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.1999 IN O.S.NO.89/1990, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), AT: DHARWAD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants and the learned counsel for respondents. 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsels appearing for both the sides as the matter was heard on merits of the case. 3. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2011, passed in R.A.No.142/2009, by the Fast Track Court-I, Dharwad (First Appellate Court), by which the judgment and decree dated 09.03.1999 passed in O.S.No.89/1990 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Dharwad (Trial Court), is confirmed. 4. The suit filed by plaintiffs for declaration is decreed, declaring that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 schedule property, which is confirmed in the regular appeal by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, against the concurrent finding of fact, the defendants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. 5. It is the case of plaintiffs that originally the properties No.293 and 291 (suit property) were belonging to the father of plaintiffs. The father of plaintiffs has sold the property bearing No.293 measuring 122 sq.yards to defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 07.01.1946. The suit property bearing No.291 is adjacent to the property bearing No.293 and is an open space. For quite sometime the defendants were using the said open space (suit property) bearing No.291. Thereafter the plaintiffs have requested the defendants to hand over the suit property which is open space, but the defendants refused. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 6. The defendants have filed written statement and pleaded that they are in possession over property for more than 12 years and they have perfected title by adverse possession. 7. One of the issues framed by the Trial Court based on the pleadings of the defendants that, whether the defendants prove that he is in possession over the suit property for more than 12 years with the knowledge of plaintiff and public at large, therefore, the perfected his title by way of adverse possession? 8. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and declared that the suit schedule property described in the schedule as shown by the letters OPQRSTU is part and parcel of VSS No.291 of Uppina Betageri village and also decreed for possession and permanent injunction against the defendants. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 9. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of fact, the defendants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal by raising various grounds and contending that the appeal involves substantial questions of law. 10. The plaintiffs in support of their pleadings have produced documentary evidence that Ex.P.1 is the record of rights of VSS No.291, Ex.P.4 to 12 are the tax paid receipts, which prove the fact that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The defendants have produced the original sale deed dated 07.01.1946, which is pertaining to the VSS No.293 sold by father of plaintiffs to defendant No.1. It is the case of defendants that admitting the plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property which is VSS No.291, but they have contended that they have perfected title by way of adverse - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 possession. Upon the specific issue framed in this regard, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently given finding that the defendant has failed to prove that they have perfected title by adverse possession. The defendant was concerned only with the property bearing VSS No.293 but not VSS No.291. Therefore, based on the evidence on record as discussed above and discussed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have proved on their own standing that they are the owners of suit schedule property. Therefore, there is no perversity found in the judgment and decree passed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, there is no merit found in the appeal, much less no substantial questions of law are involved to admit the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:743 RSA No. 6093 of 2011 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44