Karnataka High Court
Sri Onkaramurthy vs Rangegowda on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
RSA No. 884 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. 884 OF 2024 (INJ-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ONKARAMURTHY
S/O GURUMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SRI MOHAN KUMAR
S/O GURUMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. SRI KRISHNA KUMAR
S/O GURUMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT K BYADARAHALLY VILLAGE,
Digitally signed SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
by DEVIKA M
HASSAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI ANIL RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGEGOWDA
S/O MUDLIGIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. MANJA
S/O MUDLIGIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
RSA No. 884 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. KUMARA
S/O MUDLIGIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT K BYADARAHALLY VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
HASSAN
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2024 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.50/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, HASSAN AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
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 appellants.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and they are in possession and -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46390 RSA No. 884 of 2024 HC-KAR enjoyment of the same but the defendants are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants in the written statement specifically contend that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and further contend that entire averments of the plaint is false. It is further contend that the grandfather of the defendants by name Thimmegowda had 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.217/4 of K.Byadarahalli Village of Hassan Taluk and mother of defendant No.1 by name Smt. Lakkamma along with her elder son Nanjegowda had sold 2¼ guntas of land to the father of the plaintiffs on 26.04.1977 and she has also executed the said sale deed on behalf of defendant No.1 and the property purchased by the father of the plaintiffs comes to 2,340 square feet, but, the plaintiffs are claiming the measurement of suit schedule property as 4,127 square feet. Hence, they are not entitled for any relief.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence and particularly taking note of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46390 RSA No. 884 of 2024 HC-KAR material and record and also the admission on the part of PW1 which has been discussed in paragraph 20 as well as 21, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs has title only in respect of 2¼ guntas of land and the same is also denied by the defendants and DW1 evidence also discussed in paragraph 22. Having considered the material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court.
5. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record and keeping the findings recorded by the Trial Court in paragraph 19, reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record and observation is made in paragraph 20 that the Trial Court clearly observed that one gunta is equal to 1089 square feet and for 2¼ guntas comes to 2450 square feet and claim made by the plaintiffs is excess than what they have purchased and that is 1,677 square feet more claim than what they have purchased. The First Appellate Court also taken note of admission on the part of PW1 and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46390 RSA No. 884 of 2024 HC-KAR concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing to the appellants is that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and reasons assigned while dismissing the suit as well as the appeal is not proper in respect of Ex.P4 - the demand register extract produced by the plaintiff. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantive question of law.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the counsel for the appellants mainly relies upon the document of Ex.P4 and Ex.P4 is only a document of demand register extract. Admittedly, the sale is only in respect of 2¼ guntas of land and not more than that. But claim is made more than the what the plaintiffs have purchased and only based on the demand register extract, the Court cannot grant the relief of declaration that too more extent of land what has not been conveyed to the plaintiffs. When such material was taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46390 RSA No. 884 of 2024 HC-KAR this Court do not found any perversity in the findings of both the Courts since both the Courts held that where there is no title, question of granting the relief of declaration does not arise. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the appeal and to frame substantive question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN