Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumangala vs The Chief Secretary on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
RSA No. 1736 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1736 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMANGALA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O. R. SHIVAKUMAR,
R/AT MARALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK-572 106.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 001.
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572101.
5. THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
RSA No. 1736 of 2019
HC-KAR
URUKERE KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
BY ITS SECRETARY AND PRESIDENT
572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2019 PASSED IN
RA NO.135/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT TUMAKURU DISMISSNG THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 04.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.244/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., I AT TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property declaring that the entries in the revenue records are illegal and unlawful and to enter her name in the revenue records and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is a 'Sarkari Kharab Gunduthopu'. This property was granted in favour of one K.Hanumaiah S/o Thirumalaiah on 13.10.1968 and Sannad was issued in his favour. As such, Hanumaiah became the absolute owner and his name was entered in the Index of Land and Record of Rights. Subsequently, Hanumaiah sold the schedule property in favour of one Lalithamma W/o Venkataramaiah under a Sale Deed and delivered the possession to her. In turn, the said Lalithamma had sold the suit land vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.10.1980 in favour of the plaintiff and possession was also handed over. On 25.10.1982, the Tahsildar, Tumakuru has ordered for transfer of Khatha and Pahani in the name of the plaintiff through Order No.MR.4/8485.
4. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, without any material evidence, initiated proceedings and without issuing any notice either to the plaintiff or to said Hanumaiah had cancelled the grant made in favour of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019 HC-KAR Hanumaiah. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff in Writ Petition No.24777/1991 before this Court, which was partly allowed by cancelling the mutation entries. Therefore, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Despite the same, the Tahsildar - defendant No.4 without issuing any notice to the plaintiff, has entered the name of the Government in the records of the suit land. Thereafter, since the Grama Panchayat - defendant No.5 trespassed into the suit property by taking illegal possession, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants.
5. After entering appearance, defendant No.4-Tahsildar denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that originally the suit land was a 'Government Kharab Gundu Thopu' and K.Hanumaiah had been granted a Sannad to manage the said land, but the said land had not been granted to him. Therefore, K. Hanumaiah had no right and title to sell the suit property in favour of Lalithamma or any other person. It is his further case that -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019 HC-KAR defendant No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Order LND(T) CR 3/8687 dated 19.09.1988 cancelled the Sannad and consequently, MR.No.45/7879 dated 20.03.1979 and MR No.4/8485 dated 15.10.1985 were also cancelled and declared the said land as a 'Government Gundu Thopu'. Thereafter, the said land was granted to the construction of a house under 'Ashraya Yojana' vide Order No.LND(Tmk) SL 21/9697 dated 03.02.1997. However, the said order was recalled and the said land was reserved for construction of Government building vide Order No. LND CR 45/9697 dated 01.01.1997. The Government had also granted Rs.10.00 lakhs for construction. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. The Trial Court, after framing the relevant issues, has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that though the plaintiff has failed to prove her title over the suit schedule property, she has proved her possession and interference caused by the defendants and as such she is -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019 HC-KAR entitled to protect the same from the interference of the defendants.
7. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. As such, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents on record.
9. As could be gathered from records, the sannad issued in favour of Hanumaiah and the subsequent Sale Deeds including the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff are not seriously in dispute. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of Sannad, the revenue entries were mutated in the name of subsequent purchasers and in the name of plaintiff. The cancellation of sannad and the revenue -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019 HC-KAR entries passed by the Deputy Commissioner though challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in WP.24777/1991, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has partly allowed the writ petition by sustaining the cancellation of mutation entries.
10. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that sannad issued in favour of Hanumaiah had not been cancelled, as such, the subsequent Sale Deeds including the Sale Deed made in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property sustain. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have granted the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.
11. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the findings of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.24777/1991 in respect of sannad, the nature of the land, the limited right of Hanumaiah and the subsequent Sale Deeds had not been challenged. However, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46784 RSA No. 1736 of 2019 HC-KAR had been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in respect of possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In such circumstance, the prayer of the plaintiff for the relief of injunction has been rightly granted by both the Courts by rejecting the relief of declaration.
12. As such, in my view, there is absolutely no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26