Karnataka High Court
Manchanaika vs Bokkanaika on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
RSA No. 693 of 2024
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.693 OF 2024 (POS)
BETWEEN:
MANCHANAIKA
S/O SIDDALINGA NAIKA,
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT ITNA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
H D KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT 571121
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA H. K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BOKKANAIKA
KARNATAKA S/O LATE BOKKANAIKA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(A). BETTANAIKA
S/O BOKKANAIAKA
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
1(B) DEVALAMMA
W/O BETTANAIKA
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
RSA No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR
1(C) BASAVANAIKA
S/O BOKKANAIAKA
MAJOR
1(D). LINGAMMA
D/O BOKKANAIAKA
MAJOR
1(E) PUTTAMMA
W/O BEKKANAIKA
D/O LATE BOKKANIAKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT ITNA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 571121
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2023
PASSED IN R.A NO.2/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D. KOTE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
RSA No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of possession is that the grandmother of the plaintiff Smt. Devamma is the owner of the house bearing No.182/1, 182/2 and 182/3 totally measuring 24x66. This property is divided into Item Nos.1 and 2 and the Item No.1 portion of property is in possession of the plaintiff and portion of Item No.2 property is in the possession of the defendants. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the family members of defendant No.1. The grandmother of plaintiff is an old aged woman. On the ground of humanity, given some portion of the house i.e., Item No.2 property to the defendants for their residential purpose with subject to condition. These facts are known to everybody in the village and even today defendant No.1 and his family members i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in permissible possession of Item No.2 of the property. The -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46386 RSA No. 693 of 2024 HC-KAR Khatha of the suit Item Nos.1 and 2 stands in the name of the grandmother of the plaintiff. Apart from that KEB bills and other revenue records are standing in her name. The grandmother of plaintiff executed a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff on 27.01.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property. By virtue of the said registered gift deed, the plaintiff acquired the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. The Item No.2 property is in dilapidation condition, therefore, the plaintiff made an enquiry with the defendants that to vacate Item No.2 property to demolish and reconstruct the same. Though defendants agreed to vacate, but did not vacate the same. The plaintiff also made an application to the competent authority i.e., Panchayath for change of katha in relation to entire suit schedule property by virtue of said gift deed. The same was objected by filing an objections and hence, an endorsement was issued and defendants also refused to vacate premises. Hence, filed the suit.
4. In response to the suit summons, the defendants appeared and defendant No.2 filed the written statement denying the entire plaint averments whereas the ownership of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46386 RSA No. 693 of 2024 HC-KAR the property was denied. He further contended that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of both plaintiff and defendants. There is no partition or division between the plaintiff and defendants family. The plaintiff's family is residing in Item No.1 property and the family of defendant No.1 is residing in Item No.2 property. It is further contended in the written statement that the plaintiff's grandmother and mother of defendant No.1 names are the same and taking undue advantage of the similarities of the name of the grandmother of the plaintiff and mother of the defendant No.1, concocted the documents behind the back of the defendants. The khatha of the suit schedule property stands in the name of mother of defendant No.1. The defendants denied that the plaintiff's grandmother was given second item of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's grandmother has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property to execute alleged gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged gifted is not binding upon the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs are not having any right over the suit schedule property.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386 RSA No. 693 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings available on record, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the possession and also for mandatory injunction since the plaintiff has not placed any material to prove the case. On the other hand, the defendants proved that grandmother of the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property to execute the alleged gift deed. In paragraph 30, the Trial Court in detail discussed with regard to the title is concerned in respect of execution of the gift deed and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.2/2023. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the Points and having reassessed both oral and document evidence available on record particularly, considering the documents and evidence in paragraphs 45 to 48 comes to the conclusion that in order to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46386 RSA No. 693 of 2024 HC-KAR prove the title of the grandmother of the plaintiff, nothing is placed on record and concurred with the finding of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record. Inspite of defendants have not substantiated their defence, Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the appellant. So also the Appellate Court committed an error in not considering the material since there is an admission on the part of defendants that the suit schedule property is the ancestral properties and the defendants specifically denied that grandmother of the plaintiff was not having any title or right to execute the gift deed. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.
8. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint that the property originally -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46386 RSA No. 693 of 2024 HC-KAR belongs to Devamma to the extent of 24x66 and the same was divided as Item Nos.1 and 2 and the said Devamma had executed the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. But the defendants have filed objections contending that grandmother is not having any right to execute the gift deed. Hence, it is the burden on the plaintiff to prove the same stating that his grandmother was having title over the property since the defendants have denied the very title. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record in paragraph 30 comes to the conclusion that burden lies on the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 and 2 i.e., grandmother is the owner of the suit schedule property but in order to prove the factum of ownership of the grandmother, nothing is placed on record. The counsel for the appellant vehemently contend that RTC stands in the name of the grandmother but based on the RTC, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that plaintiff is the owner. Apart from that the specific reasoning is given by the Trial Court that plaintiff has not produced any title deed of the Devamma to prove his case. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386 RSA No. 693 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, taken note of both oral and documentary evidence wherein it observed that the conclusion of the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendants without any material is absolutely wrong and it would cause serious impact on another suit which is pending for consideration in O.S.No.397/2012 for the relief of partition and separate possession by the present defendants against the present plaintiff and others. When the defendants themselves pleaded the suit schedule property is a joint property of themselves and plaintiff, such observation of learned Judge that scheduled property belongs to defendants is absolutely wrong and it requires interference with the said observation made by the Trial Court. Having taken note of the material available on record, the First Appellate Court also reassessed the materials and in paragraph 49, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the owner of the suit schedule property based on the gift deed executed by his grandmother since the very owner herself was not having any right over the said property. When the plaintiff fails to establish his title over suit schedule property to the extent stated in the suit, then he
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46386 RSA No. 693 of 2024 HC-KAR is not entitled for the relief of possession. Both the Courts have taken note of the fact that the claim made by the plaintiff is only based on the gift deed and except the gift deed, no other documents are placed before the Court to prove that the very donor has got title. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN