- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2026 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O MAHESHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT HALE MIRLE VILLAGE, MIRLE HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SHAMBHAMMA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LRS (R1 TO R3) SRI.VENKATESHA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT.YASHODHAMMA, W/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SRI. N.V. HARISHA, S/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NATANAHALLI VILLAGE MIRLE HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.11.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.27/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGARA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.11.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.176/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment & decree rendered by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Nagara in R.A. No.27/2022 dated 3.11.2025, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Nagara, in O.S No. 176/2014 dated 03.11.2022, whereby the learned trial judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of easy understanding. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 Plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the grandson of Smt. Devamma W/o late Kadegowda and his grand-mother - Devamma had purchased suit schedule property from one Sri Appegowda s/o Marigowda, through a registered sale deed dated 20.02.1969, thereby said Appegowda had put Smt. Devamma in possession of the suit schedule property. 3.3 It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 - Shambamma w/o Late Thimmegowda, purchased land in Sy. No.766/1 and 766/2, measuring 1 acre 18 guntas by way of registered sale deed in the year 1968 from one Sri Ramegowda. The 2nd defendant got changed the khata in respect of 766/1 to an extent of 2 acres illegally in the year 1980-1981 by way of mutation and then, khata was changed in the name of 3rd defendant, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 who is the wife of 2nd defendant. Thereafter, the khata was changed pursuant to the partition deed between the parties and the entire extent of 2 acres in Sy. No.766/1 including 12 guntas of land belonged to the plaintiff, was mutated in the name of the defendants. 3.4 It is also case of the plaintiff that his grand- mother has purchased 12 guntas in Survey No. 766/1 by way of a registered sale deed and thereafter she executed a registered Will dated 27.1.1997 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said 12 guntas of land. By oversight the survey number has been wrongly mentioned as Sy. No. 730/2 instead of 766/1, but the boundaries of the land have been correctly mentioned in the registered sale deed. 3.5 It is further case of the plaintiff that his grand- mother - Devamma died on 28.09.2006 and from that day, the plaintiff is in a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner, having acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. But the defendants, taking undue advantage of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 the wrong entry of survey number in the sale deed, has succeeded in getting the entries in the RTC into their name, which is illegal. Accordingly, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. 3.6 Upon filing the suit, summons was got issued to the defendants. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 though appeared through their counsel, did not file the written statement. Defendant No.4 filed the written statement and contested the matter. Defendant no. 4 took up a plea that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendants, so also there is no relation between the suit schedule property and the plaintiff. The plaintiff is completely unknown person to the defendants and at no point of time, the plaintiff was in possession or enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 also took up a plea that the suit is barred by limitation and did not agree with the Will being executed by the grandmother in favour of the plaintiff as the grandmother herself did not have the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 right, title to bequeath such property. He also took up a plea that the suit schedule property mentioned in the sale deed dated 20.02.1969 and the ancestral property of the defendants has got no resemblance. Accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.7 Based on the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 4, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: i) Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession nd enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?. ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference by the defendants ? iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed? iv) What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the will dated 27.01.1997? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 3.8 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and three other witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Defendant No.4 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D15. 3.9 On the basis of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for both parties, the learned trial judge did not find favour with the plaintiff and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the ownership over the suit schedule property by holding that the plaintiff would have to stand on his own legs and prove his case on the facts of his own rather than on the weakness of the defendants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3.10 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate court in R.A No. 27/2022. On summons being served, defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 appear, but defendant No.4 appeared and contested the matter before the Appellate Court. 3.11 Based on the materials on record, both oral and documentary and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, the first appellate court reconsidered and re-analysed the matter once again and formulated the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1 is just and proper? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court require interference? 3. What order ? 3.12 Upon reconsideration and re-analysing the matter once again with the whole gamut of materials placed before the trial Court, the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court and the arguments putforth by learned counsels, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The first appellate Court observed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 that it is the plaintiff who approached the Court to seek declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that Ramegowda had property in the land bearing Sy. Nos. 766/1 or 766/2 and that the survey number was wrongly mentioned as 730/2 instead of 766/1 in Ex.P1. Further, no materials were placed on record during the life time of Devamma to rectify the sale deed/Ex.P1 with respect to wrong mention of survey number. Having reconsidered all these aspects once again and other pleadings urged by the plaintiff in the trial Court as well as in the appellate court including the Will dated 27.01.1997 said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff by his grandmother, the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that there is no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court and plaintiff was unable to prove his ownership and possession over 12 guntas of land in Sy.No. 766/1 and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 accordingly dismissed the appeal, confirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court. 3.13 Being aggrieved by the judgments & decree passed by both the Courts, appellant/plaintiff is before this Court in the present second appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for appellant/ plaintiff. 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have committed serious illegality in not considering the material evidence placed on record, muchless the identification on the basis of the boundaries in the description provided by the plaintiff in the schedule to the plaint. It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that when there is a conflict between the survey number, description and boundaries, the boundaries and other reliable indicia of identity deserve primacy and the matter requires holistic - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 evaluation rather than summary rejection. It is also vehemently contended that both the Courts have placed the burden on the appellant/plaintiff, which is not correct and it was an error committed by both the courts in not relying upon the material already placed on record with regard to the sale deed/Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff and the Will in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the Courts below have wrongly discarded the survey sketch and plan - Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 prepared by the Taluk Surveyor/Competent Authority and have misapplied Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act while rejecting the same for want of examination of the author. It is also contended by learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff that both the Courts have placed undue reliance on the revenue entries and mutation records in favour of the respondents, to decide the title and possession by overlooking the settled position that revenue records are not documents of title and cannot override the registered - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 conveyance or legally established identity of the property, which is in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when appellant has produced the registered sale deed/Ex.P1 dated 20.02.1969 with the specific boundaries and pleaded that Sy.No. 730/2 is a wrong entry, the Courts below ought to have considered the same in a proper perspective and allowed the suit of the plaintiff. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contends that substantial questions of law are required to be framed to further delve upon the matter. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the papers. 7. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents as this Court does not find good ground or cogent reason on merits to frame substantial question of law as none exists, for the following reasons: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 8. Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. On a careful perusal of the schedule of the suit, it is seen that the property is mentioned as "766/1 (wrongly mentioned as 730/2), measuring 12 guntas out of 2 acres, situated at Mirle village, Mirle Hobli, K.R. Nagara taluk, Mysuru district". Therefore, even according to the plaintiff, the sale deed is talking about Sy.No.730/2 measuring to an extent of 12 guntas. When the plaintiff comes before the Court, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his case on the basis of the materials produced by him and on the preponderance of probabilities on the documents of his title. Primarily the onus is upon the plaintiff to do so rather than relying upon the weakness of the defendants and so also if the plaintiff is claiming that defendants are interfering with his possession, he ought to establish the same by placing cogent material evidence. In the present case, suit is filed for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 to establish his title on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Apparently it is seen that the defendants are not claiming any right or ownership in Sy.No.766/1, because the sale deed mentioned Sy.No. 730/2. It is the case of plaintiff that in the sale deed, the survey number is wrongly mentioned as 730/2 instead of 766/1. The plaintiff’s grandmother - Devamma purchased the property to an extent of 12 guntas from one Appegowda by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.02.1969. If the plaintiff claimed that there was a wrong mention of the survey number in the sale deed, nothing prevented plaintiff from rectifying the same or acting immediately pursuant to the registration of the sale deed or taking possession of the property. All these aspects have been gone into in detail by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. On re-appreciation and re-consideration of the entire material placed on record, both the Courts have concurrently come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has miserably failed to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 prove his case and is relying upon the weaknesses of the defendants, which cannot be appreciated. 9. Having gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and the reasoning and finding given by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgments rendered by both the Courts, on facts. The appellant has not made out any good ground or sufficient reason to frame substantial questions of law as none exists in the present case on hand. 10. Section 100 of CPC deals with the Scope and powers of the Appellate Court. It is a no more res integra to state that the powers as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited. This Court, in several catena of judgments, has held that the Appellate Court sitting in the second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless there is perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 Court as well as the first Appellate Court. When two Courts have already considered the question of fact and the question of law to a large extent in detail, even if this Court finds third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both Courts, it is a general Rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record. 11. The question of framing of substantial questions of law would depend upon if there is any illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts and having gone through the records, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgments rendered by both the Courts. The appellants have not made out any good ground for this Court to frame any substantial question of law, as no such question of law, in my opinion, exists to be - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17825 RSA No. 243 of 2026 framed to decide the case on hand. The reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by both the Courts are just and proper. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments rendered by both the Courts. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R This appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as this Court does not find any good ground to frame any substantial questions of law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44