- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.951 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI K.M. CHINNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE: 562110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 2. SRI K.H. ANJINAPPA S/O DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE: 562110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15048/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.454/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Court, while admitting the appeal on 05.08.2020, has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in not framing the issue of limitation while recording a finding on the said aspect while decreeing the suit?” 2. During the course of the argument, this Court framed additional substantial question of law on 06.03.2026, which reads as under: “Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction, which is based on the registered a sale deed dated 05.12.1990, on the ground that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 defendant No.2 had no exclusive right to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff, as the suit property was held to be the ancestral joint family property?” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents are heard on the substantial questions of law framed by this Court. 4. The present regular second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2020 passed in R.A. No.15048/2019 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, (‘First Appellate Court’ for short), confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2017 in O.S. No.454/2009 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (‘Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 Plaint averments. 5. The plaintiff states that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property bearing in Survey No.15/2 measuring 25 guntas, situated at Kempathimmanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. It is stated that the property was purchased under the registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1990 executed by defendant No.2. Pursuant to the Sale Deed, mutation entries were made in his name and he was cultivating the land. It is stated that the plaintiff drilled a bore well, installed a pump set and grown crops on the property. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that defendants in collusion with the revenue authorities obtained an order from the Assistant Commissioner in RA No.35/2003-2004 resulting in mutation entries in their name. It is stated by the plaintiff that the said order was obtained behind his back and without notice and the same was challenged before the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 Deputy Commissioner in revision proceedings. The said revision petition has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted that when the defendants tried to interfere with his possession and deny his title, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. 6. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia contending that the suit property is the ancestral property belonging to the family of the defendants and that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Thimmaiah, who had two sons, namely, Dodda Hanumanthappa and Chikka Hanumanthappa. The defendants are children of Dodda Hanumanthappa. In the family arrangement and oral partition, an extent of 38 ½ guntas fell to the share of Dodda Hanumanthappa, the father of the defendants. It is further stated that the defendants thereafter divided the property among themselves and became entitled to 19 ¼ guntas each. Since the mutation has not been effected - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 earlier, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal and directed mutation entry in favour of the defendants and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the same. It is stated that defendant No.2 had no exclusive title or right to sell 25 guntas to the plaintiff. Hence, it is stated that the Sale Deed relied upon by the plaintiff does not confer any valid title. 7. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit holding that: i. The plaintiff has failed to establish absolute ownership over the suit schedule property; ii. The property was shown to be the ancestral property of the defendants’ family; iii. Defendant No.2 had no direct right to convey the entire extent of 25 guntas in favour of the plaintiff, so the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the schedule property. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 iv. That the suit for declaration was also barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the defendants had denied the plaintiff's title during the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2003-04 and accordingly, by the judgment and decree dismissed the suit. 8. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that: i. The plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant No.2 had a transferable right over the property. ii. The plaintiff has failed to establish possession over the suit property. iii. The Sale Deed relied upon by the plaintiff cannot confer title, as defendant No.2 had not established any share in the suit schedule property. iv. That the suit was barred by limitation, as denial of title had arisen much earlier. Accordingly, the First - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the Sale Deed and the revenue records produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's title flows from the registered Sale Deed executed by defendant No.2, which has not been specifically denied nor has been a subject in the proceedings before any Civil Court. It is submitted that the Courts below, in the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction, have concluded that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property without there being any documentary evidence establishing partition, and have overlooked the Sale Deed executed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1990. The appellant has filed I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint schedule property and I.A. under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 for production of additional documents, which are necessary for proper adjudication. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/defendant No.2 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants and that defendant No.2 could not have conveyed more extent than his share and that the plaintiff has failed to establish title or possession over the suit schedule property. It is specifically contended that the suit itself is barred by limitation, as the plaintiff's title had already been disputed by the defendants in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2003-2004. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Revision Appeal No.18/2009-10 filed by the plaintiff/appellant, challenging the revenue entries in favour of respondent No.2, came to be dismissed, upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.35/2003-2004, on the ground that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 petitioner/appellant had already approached the Civil Court in O.S. No.454/2009 seeking declaration and permanent injunction. 11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No.3/2021 under Order XLI Rule 27 seeking permission to produce additional documents and I.A. No.2/2021 under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for additional evidence, the appellant has stated that certain documents which are necessary for establishing his right, title and possession over the suit schedule property could not be produced earlier due to bonafide reasons. 13. In the affidavit filed in support of amendment application, the appellant has stated that during the pendency of the suit, the property in Sy No.15/2 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 underwent subdivision phodi and the original suit number has been bifurcated into Sy No.15/13 and Sy. No.15/19 pursuant to the mutation proceedings dated 29.09.2014, it is stated that the suit schedule property measuring 25 guntas now forms part of Sy No.15/13 and therefore, the amendment is necessary to properly identify the suit property and to avoid difficulties in the execution of the decree. On substantial question of law: 14. A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court indicates that the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred by limitation. However, it is evident from the record that no issue with regard to limitation was framed by the Trial Court. It is settled principle of law that when a Court proposes to decide a suit on the ground of limitation and such determination involves factual enquiry, a specific issue must be framed and the parties must be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence on the said aspect. In the present case, the Trial - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 Court has recorded a finding on limitation without framing an issue. The First Appellate Court has also failed to notice this procedural irregularity and has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The record also indicates that the suit has been dismissed on the sole ground that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation without framing an issue and without giving an opportunity to the parties. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Trial Court has committed a serious error in deciding the question of limitation without framing an issue and consequently, finding recorded on that aspect cannot be sustained. Accordingly, substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the appellant. On Additional substantial question of law: 15. The Courts below have dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the suit property was the ancestral joint family property and defendant No.2 had no - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 exclusive right to execute the sale deed dated 05.12.1990. However, it is seen that the plaintiff has relied upon the mortgage deed dated 03.07.1985 and the registered sale deed dated 05.12.1990 executed by defendant No.2 in his favour. The question as to i. Whether the property was ancestral; ii. Whether defendant No.2 had transferable interest in the property and whether it can be adjudicated in a suit for declaration based on the registered document of the year 1990, in the absence of any challenge to the said registered deed. 16. Further, the appellant has filed application seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property and production of additional documentary evidence, which are directly connected with the identification and title of the suit property. It is also necessary to state that right of the plaintiff is claimed under the registered document. The Trial Court goes on an assumption of mutation entries - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 standing in the name of defendant No.2, which was admittedly in the year 2003-2004. It is also settled proposition of law that revenue entries would not confer title or extinguish title. It is only for fiscal purpose that a mutation entry can be relied upon. For the foregoing reason, this Court is of the opinion that the judgments of the Courts below suffered from perversity and illegality warranting interference. Accordingly, additional substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the appellant. 17. In view of the findings, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below cannot be sustained and the matter requires reconsideration by the Trial Court after permitting the parties to place additional material on record and by framing appropriate issues, including the issue relating to limitation. Accordingly this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular second appeal is allowed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 ii. The judgment and decree passed in RA No.15048/2019 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Devanahalli and the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2017 passed in O.S. No.454/2009 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli are hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. iv. I.A. filed under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint and I.A. filed under Order XLI Rule 27 for production of additional documents are also remitted to the Trial Court for consideration and disposal in accordance with law. v. The Trial Court shall consider and decide the said interlocutory applications and frame additional issues regarding limitation and the presumption of a registered document. vi. The Trial Court shall also give opportunity to adduce further evidence/fresh evidence, if required and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15391 RSA No. 951 of 2020 thereafter, the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law. vii. Since the suit is of the year 2019, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. viii. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.04.2026 without awaiting for further notice. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20