- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O M. MUNILINGAPPA NO. 49, KAILASNAGAR VASANTHAPURA ROAD KONANAKUNTE CROSS BANGALORE-560062. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.M. SOMASHEKARAIAH (NOC), ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. T. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O SRI SHIVASANGAPPA C/O SRI H BEERAPPA BEHIND CANARA BANK KONANAKUNTE CROSS BANGALORE-560062. 2. SRI. PARASHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SRI. M. MAHADEVAPPA NO.500,14TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, BSK II STAGE SASTRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560028. 3. SMT. THAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 W/O SRI M MAHADEVAPPA NO.500, 14TH CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD, BSK II STAGE SASTRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560028. 4. SRI. V. VASANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATAVALLABHACHAR SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRs SRI. V PARTHASARATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE V. VASANTHAKUMAR 5. SRI. V. PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE V. VASANTHAKUMAR 6. SRI. V. MADHUSUDAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE V. VASANTHAKUMAR 7. SRI. V. MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE V. VASANTHAKUMAR 8. SMT. V. RAJALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE V. VASANTHAKUMAR NO. 4(A) TO (E) ALL ARE R/O VASANTHAPURA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A TO E); V/O/D 29.04.2015 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS ACCEPTED BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, RULE-1 OF O-XLI OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2011 PASSED IN O.S.3209/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2011 in O.S.No.3209/2005 whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction over the suit Site No. 37 is dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties, are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.3209/2005 seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of Site No.37 and for consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiff asserts his claim of title on a registered sale deed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 dated 11.10.2004, said to have been executed by the erstwhile owner – defendant No.4. It is his specific case that pursuant to the execution and registration of the said sale deed, vacant possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to him and that he has been in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof as absolute owner. The cause of action for the suit is stated to have arisen on 05.04.2005, when certain unknown persons allegedly came near the suit property, made enquiries with the plaintiff and attempted to trespass. According to the plaintiff, those persons claimed that they had been sent by the present defendant to forcibly take possession of the property, thereby necessitating institution of the suit. 4. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement stoutly denying the plaint averments. The defendant has specifically contended that there is no site bearing No.37 in the layout in question and that the plaintiff has set up a false and fabricated claim on the basis of a concocted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 document allegedly executed by defendant No.4. It is further asserted that even as per the layout plan produced by the plaintiff himself, Site No.36 is the last site in the said layout and no site bearing No.37 is reflected therein. On these grounds, the defendant sought dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. In order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and relied upon documentary evidence marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and another witness as DW.2 and produced documentary evidence marked as Exs.D1 to D18. The trial Court, upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the title deed relied upon by the plaintiff and the layout plan marked at Ex.P6, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was asserting title over a non-existent and fictitious site. Holding that the plaintiff failed to establish his title as well as alleged - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 interference by the defendant, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant–plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent–defendant at length. The entire records of the trial Court have been carefully perused. 7. In the light of the contentions urged and the material on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: "(i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit schedule property is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore calls for interference in this appeal? (ii) What order?" Finding on Point No.(i): 8. In order to substantiate his alleged title over Site No.37, the plaintiff has produced two registered sale - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 deeds dated 11.10.2004, marked at Exs.P1 and P2. It is his case that Site No.37 was purchased in two portions under the said sale deeds from defendant No.4. The foundation of his claim, therefore, rests entirely upon the existence and identity of Site No.37 in the layout formed by defendant No.4. This Court has carefully examined the layout plan produced by the plaintiff himself and marked as Ex.P6. Admittedly, the land in question is an agricultural land converted into what are described as “revenue sites”. It is also not in dispute that the layout plan at Ex.P6 is not an approved layout. 9. On a meticulous scrutiny of Ex.P6, it becomes manifest that the layout reflects formation of only 36 sites. Site No.37 does not find place anywhere in the said plan. The document clearly depicts two parallel rows of sites, namely Site Nos.4 to 7 on one side and Site Nos.8 to 12 on the other, with a strip of open space in between, evidently intended to serve as a road or access way. All other sites in the layout are shown as abutting a road. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 However, the space situated between the said two rows which is in the nature of a road is now sought to be identified as Site No.37 and alienated in favour of the plaintiff. 10. The very configuration of the layout makes it apparent that the alleged Site No.37 is carved out of the common open space lying between two rows of sites. Such space, by its very nature and placement, is meant for ingress and egress and cannot be treated as an independent residential site. The formation of revenue sites without statutory approval is unfortunately not uncommon. Ex.D6, which is also a layout plan produced by the defendants, further demonstrates the unscientific and irregular manner in which the sites have been formed, without provision for basic civic amenities. In this backdrop, the action of defendant No.4 in projecting the road portion as a separate site and executing two sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff clearly indicates an attempt - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 to create and convey a fictitious Site No.37 for wrongful gain. 11. On a closer examination of Ex.P6, this Court is of the considered view that the portion now described as Site No.37 cannot, in law, be recognized as a valid and identifiable site. Equally, the defendants, who are owners of adjoining Site Nos.6 and 7, cannot assert proprietary rights over the said open space, which ought to be designated and preserved as a road for the benefit of all site holders in the layout. The material on record discloses that the plaintiff had earlier purchased Site Nos.4 and 5 in the very same layout. Being an existing purchaser in the layout, he was fully aware of the physical features and the configuration of the sites, including the existence of the intervening road portion. Despite such knowledge, he proceeded to obtain two sale deeds in respect of the very road portion, by describing it as Site No.37. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 12. It is indeed unfortunate that agricultural lands are being fragmented into unapproved revenue layouts, and that open spaces meant for common use are being converted into saleable plots. Courts cannot lend their imprimatur to such transactions. Merely because the plaintiff has secured registered sale deeds, title does not automatically pass if the subject matter of the conveyance is non-existent or incapable of lawful conveyance. A document of title cannot validate what is fundamentally a fictitious or impermissible subdivision. 13. The learned trial Judge has elaborately considered these aspects and has also taken note of the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1, which further weaken the plaintiff’s claim. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court rightly concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish that Site No.37 is a genuine and existing site and that he has acquired lawful title thereto. The finding recorded by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10670 RFA No. 84 of 2012 of evidence and does not suffer from perversity or misapplication of law. For the foregoing reasons, Point No.(i) is answered in the ‘negative’. Finding on point No.(ii): 14. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8