Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rangaswamaiah vs Sri. Gangarangaiah @ Mayya on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
RSA No. 377 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.377 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH
S/O LATE GANGIAHA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(a) SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
1(b) SRI. GANGARAJAIAH
S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
1(c) SMT. LALITHA
D/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
Digitally signed W/O NAGARAJU
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL ARE
R/AT HONNENAHALLI
GULUR HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 118.
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
GULUR HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
RSA No. 377 of 2022
HC-KAR
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 118.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE AND ALSO FOR
PROPOSED APPELLANT NO.1(a) TO 1(c))
AND:
1. SRI. GANGARANGAIAH @ MAYYA
S/O MUDDARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O HONNENAHALLI
GULUR HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 118.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.261/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 08.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.372/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
RSA No. 377 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and injunction is that suit schedule property Sy.No.8/2 totally measuring 2.29 acres, out of which 2.32 acres of Honnenahalli, Gulur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk belongs to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the property. It is further contended that defendant without having right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and in collusion with the revenue authority has obtained illegal entries of the suit schedule property in his name. Based on -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR the said illegal entries, attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, filed the suit.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that his father Mudalarangaiah has purchased the portion of the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 22.10.1977 and they are in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are not having any title over the suit schedule property which is morefully described in the written statement. Hence, they are not entitled for the relief of declaration.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues are framed and the Trial Court allowed both the plaintiffs and the defendant to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record as well pleadings of the parties, particularly in paragraph No.14 taken note of the claim made by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR plaintiffs and also the case of the defendant and taken note of the total extent of Sy.No.8, 9 acres, 28 guntas and how title flows between the parties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that extent of 1 acre, 16 guntas was purchased in terms of Ex.P2 in the year 1960 from the brother and the remaining 1 acre 16 guntas was allotted to them in the partition and total to the extent of 2 acres 22 guntas. The Trial Court also taken note of the subsequent sale deeds which have been executed i.e., Exs.D5 to D8 to the extent of 2 acres 5 guntas which were sold by the mother of the plaintiffs in different bit of land and also taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 and their father has sold 3 guntas of land in the suit property and also sold total property to the extent of 2 acres 8 guntas in the suit property and now, the remaining land is standing in the name of the plaintiffs. Taking into note of all these documentary evidence, the Court comes to the conclusion that rightly cannot seek the relief of declaration to the extent of 2 acres of 32 guntas as claimed. Hence, -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR dismissed the suit answering issue Nos.1 to 3 as 'negative' and issue No.4 as 'affirmative', since the defendant had purchased the property and also produced the document of Ex.D7 that he had purchased the land to the extent of 30 guntas from the mother of the plaintiffs.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appeal is filed in R.A.No.261/2019 is filed. The Appellate Court having considered the grounds which are urged in the first appeal, formulated the points whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference and answered the point No.1 as 'affirmative' that the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the suit and other two points for consideration whether I.A.No.2 for additional evidence filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed and whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference were answered as 'negative' and comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR
7. It is also important to note that when an attempt was made before the Appellate Court also with regard to the description of the properties Sy.Nos.8/2 and 8/3 and sale was made, in paragraph No.26 taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 with regard to the claim that defendant is trying to claim land in Sy.No.8/3 as Sy.No.8/2 and thereby, plaintiffs have given up the said contention in his cross- examination. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that, irrespective of the weaknesses on the part of the defendant's case, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case on their own strength and also considered the documents Exs.D5 to D10 of which Ex.D7 is admitted, which registered sale deeds shows that plaintiffs' mother had herself sold away various portions of the suit schedule property to various purchasers, irrespective of the location of the defendant's property in Sy.Nos.8/2 or 8/3, plaintiffs' suit will have to fail. With regard to an attempt that the property which was sold is not the suit schedule property, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR the same was also answered by the Appellate Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. The main contention of counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court that both the Courts failed to take note of both oral and documentary evidence available on record. The counsel also vehemently contented that both the Courts below are not justified in relying upon the sale deeds allegedly executed by Hanumakka when they are not related to the suit schedule property i.e., land bearing Sy.No.8/2 of Honnenahalli village. Hence, the very conclusion that defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and claiming his right through Venkatappa, son of Lakshmabhovi is erroneous. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
The counsel appearing for the appellants also would submit that phodi work was done in the year 1930 itself and the properties are divided as Sy.Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 8/3 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR and no specific survey numbers are mentioned in the sale made by the mother of the plaintiffs.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court and Appellate Court considering the sale deeds executed by the mother of the plaintiffs to the extent of 2 acres 5 guntas in different bit of lands and also father had sold the land to the extent of 3 guntas, comes to the conclusion that property to the extent of 2 acres 8 guntas was already sold. Hence, cannot claim any declaration to the extent of 2 acres 32 guntas and it is not the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants that they were having more than 2 acres 32 guntas and major portions of the properties were already sold. Hence, question of granting the relief of declaration does not arise and the same is also based on the documentary evidence and there is no perversity in the finding.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that family was having more than 2 acres 32 guntas and counsel appearing to the appellants also brought to the notice of this Court that in the year 1930, in terms of Ex.P2, the brother of father of the plaintiffs had purchased other portion to the extent of 1 acre 16 guntas and 1 acre 32 guntas was also allotted in favour of the plaintiffs' father, in total to the extent of 2 acres 32 guntas. Having considered this contention, the counselwould vehemently contended that the property which was sold is not in respect of Sy.No.8/2 and would vehemently contend that there is a dispute with regard to identity of the property. But the appellants are not claiming more than the property to the extent of 2 acres 32 guntas and the Trial Court in paragraph No.14 in detail taken note of the sale deeds which are marked as Exs.D5 to D10, wherein 2 acres 5 guntas have already been sold by the mother and father also sold the portion of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR property to the extent of 2 acres 8 guntas and remaining extent is only lesser area. But, claim is made to the extent of 2 acres 32 guntas and when these documents are placed before the Court and also there is an admission with regard to sale of these properties and those sale deeds are not questioned by the plaintiffs at any point of time and now cannot contend that those properties are not sold and taking the advantage of the fact survey numbers are not properly mentioned, cannot claim that they are the owners when major portion of the property was already sold i.e., 2 acres 8 guntas by the mother as well as the father i.e., mother sold to the extent of 2 acres, 5 guntas and all these factors were also taken note of. With regard to the contention which has been raised in the second appeal also, the First Appellate Court with regard to the survey number is concerned, discussed in detail in paragraph No.26 and when such discussion is made by the Trial Court with regard to the factual aspects as well as the question of law, the question of admitting the second
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46581 RSA No. 377 of 2022 HC-KAR appeal does not arise and when there is no perversity in the finding, question of admitting the second appeal does not arise.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST,CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26