- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. YOGESH KUMAR S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT OLD KADIVANAKATTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. SRI JAYASIMHA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEAR, STUDENT, RESIDING AT OLD KADIVANAKATTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.H..VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE (NOC) AND: 1. SRI. GIDDAIAH S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 2. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O HOLIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O NINGAJJA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4. SRI. SHIVAMURTHY S/O MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O KUNDUR, GOLLARAHATTI KASABA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S C VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4 (NOC VK) ) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 8.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2008 ON THE FILE OF ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOSADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.12.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.128/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HOSADURGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGEMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2012 passed in R.A.No.12/2008 by the learned Itinerary Senior Civil Judge, Hosadurga, and the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed in O.S.No. 128 of 2005 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hosadurga. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that they are the owners, and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants etc., from encroaching the suit schedule property and interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with costs. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the owners and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they have inherited the same. According to them, their great grandfather namely Patel Narayanappa s/o Muthappa had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1945, and on the strength of the said sale deed, khata was changed in the name of senior uncle of the plaintiffs namely Yellappa S/o Govindappa. At the time of family arrangements during 1981-82 in between the sons of Govindappa, namely Yellappa, Laxmanappa and Krishnamurthy, the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs’ father, and recently the plaintiffs and their - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 father divided their joint family properties, and at that time, the suit property had been allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. According to them, they are the owners and in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is contended that the defendants are strangers to the family and have no right, title, interest or possession over the same. The defendants have denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for a declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the original propositus of the defendants by name Donne Eranna had two sons by name Bhuthanna and Giddappa and when the said Giddappa and Bhutanna were living together, the said Bhuthanna had purchased 21 acres 4 guntas of southern side - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 property out of 31 acres 38 guntas in re-survey No. 39 of Chikkayagati Village, Kasaba hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, under a registered sale deed 02.03.1914. The said Bhutanna and Giddappa have enjoyed the said property since the date of the purchase, and further they divided the property. It is contended that in the preliminary records of 1932-33, the name of one Pathanna S/o Chikkanna was wrongly entered regarding 2 acres of land and the said Pathanna is not known to the defendants. It is contended that, they and their family members have got right over the said 21 acres 4 guntas of land including the suit property. 7. It is contended that the alleged sale deed dated 03.10.1945 as claimed by the plaintiffs is a concocted document and it has no value in the eye of law and the plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the properties bearing Survey No. 39/2, 3, 4 and 5. The said alleged sale deed dated 03.10.1945 is a defective title deed, and hence the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of suit property? ii. Whether they further prove that they are in possession of suit property as on the date of suit? iii. Whether the alleged interference by the defendants is true? iv. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree as prayed for? v. What order or decree? 9. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No. 1 was examined as PW1, examined 4 witnesses as PW2 to PW4 and marked 44 documents as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P44. In rebuttal, Defendant No.1 was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 examined as DW1. Defendant No. 3 was examined as DW2 and other 4 witnesses were examined as DW3 to DW6 and marked 38 documents as Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D38. 10. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and after appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and that the alleged interference by the defendants could not be proved and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 18.12.2007. 11. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2005, filed an appeal in R.A.No. 12 of 2008 on the file of the learned Itinerary Senior Civil Judge, Hosadurga. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 12. The first appellate court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether the trial Court has committed any error or illegality while considering the evidence adduced by plaintiffs? ii. Whether the impugned judgment and decree call for interference by this Court in instant appeal? iii. What order? 13. The first appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 08.11.2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 14. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and learned counsel for the defendants. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs inherited the suit schedule property from the great grandfather of the plaintiffs namely Patel Narayanappa, who purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1945 and on the strength of registered sale deed, khata was changed in the name of Senior uncle of the plaintiffs i.e., Yallappa s/o Govindappa. The sons of Govindappa made a family arrangement and the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father i.e., Krishnamurthy and father of the plaintiffs’ divided the joint family properties in between the plaintiffs and himself, and in the said partition the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendants are the strangers to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have produced the records to show that they are the owners of the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 schedule property. Both the courts below have not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and further, he submits that the sale deed executed in favour of the great grandfather of the plaintiffs is a registered instrument. The courts below did not draw a presumption regarding the execution of a registered sale deed. Both the courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the original propositus of defendants family was Donne Eranna. He had two sons by name Buthanna and Giddappa. Both were living together and Buthanna purchased 21 acres 4 guntas of southern side out of 31 acre 28 guntas in Survey No. 39 of Chikkayagati village under a registered sale deed dated 02.03.1914 and both Buthanna and Giddappa enjoyed the suit properties. During their lifetime, the name of Pathanna was shown in the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 revenue records and during 1932-1933, it was wrongly entered regarding 2 acres of land. He submits that registered sale deed produced is of the year 1914. Thus, registered sale deed produced by the plaintiffs is of the year 1945. The great grandfather of the plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed of 1945 i.e. 3.10.1945. 17. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and possession and interference as on the date of institution of suit. Hence, on these grounds, he also submits that the plaintiffs wants to succeed in the proceedings based on the weakness of the defendants. In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society reported - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 in AIR 2014 SC 937. He submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs must establish their case independently but they cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendants. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 18. This Court, vide Order dated 23.01.2020, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the Courts below failed to press into service the presumption available to the registered document Ex.P1 and also the presumptive value attached to Exs.P2 to P17 in respect of the suit properties? ii. Whether the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence leading to perversity in the judgments and decree of the courts below? - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 Regarding substantial questions of law: 19. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other and hence they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 20. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1, he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P44. From the perusal of the deposition of PW.1, it is the case of the plaintiffs that great grandfather had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1945, and the family partition took place between the plaintiffs and others. The suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs over the property and possession. The plaintiffs to establish the ownership and possession examined 4 more witnesses. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 21. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D38. The defendants have produced Exhibit D2, which discloses that Bhutanna had purchased the property to the extent of 21 acres 4 guntas in the survey No.39 from its vendor in 1914, wherein the great grandfather of the plaintiffs had purchased the suit schedule property in 1945. Before purchasing by the great grandfather of the plaintiffs, Bhutanna had purchased the property. 22. The plaintiffs have not produced any records to show that the Pathanna S/o Chikkanna is the relative of the original owner/khatedar. The revenue records disclose that original suit property stood in the name of one Pathanna s/o Chikkanna and the suit property was purchased from Buthanna under Zubani under oral agreement and the said Pathanna’s name was entered based on the pavathi list. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 23. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that originally, the suit property belongs to one Pathanna s/o Chikkanna, and after his demise, the property belongs to Chikkanna son of Pathanna. The defendants denied that Dodda eranna is the relative of Pathanna s/o Chikkanna. 24. As observed above, the plaintiffs have not produced any records to prove the relationship of Dodda eranna, and how Pathanna acquired the right over the suit schedule property, and the sale deed executed by Pathanna in favour of great grandfather of the plaintiff i.e. Patel Narayanappa. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Although the sale deed was executed in 1945, there is presumption regarding the execution, but there is no presumption regarding the contents of the documents. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 25. Although, the document is more than 30 years old, presumption has to be drawn. Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act there is a presumption regarding the execution, and not regarding the contents of the said document. In the case of Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal reported in AIR 2006 SC 3608, wherein it is held that registered instrument carries presumption of a valid execution and prima facie valid, meaning the registration process was valid, but this does not automatically prove the truth or correctness of the contents of the presumption. The burden lies on the challenger to prove the documents is invalid or the contents are false or to rebut the presumption. 26. The defendants have rebutted the presumption by producing the registered sale deed executed in 1914. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh referred supra, both the courts below have concurrently recorded a - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 finding of facts that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. 27. Both the courts below have rightly press into the service of presumption available under the registered document Exhibit P1, and the presumptive value attached to Exhibit P2 to Exhibit P17. Ex.P2 to 17 are Form VI and RTC’s based on Exhibit P1 i.e., registered sale deed of 1945. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayaram and others Vs. Dawalatshah and others reported in AIR 1971 SC 681, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the order of revenue Authority in the Mutation proceedings based on an untrue piece of evidence has no evidentiary value in a civil suit. Accordingly, I answer substantial question Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. 28. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9153 RSA No. 290 of 2013 ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgments passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. iv. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV