Karnataka High Court
Smt. Muniyamma vs Sri. M. Byrareddy on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
RSA No. 454 of 2025
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.454 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
R/AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. BYRAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE N.MUNIYAPPA
Digitally signed R/AT GEJJAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
by DEVIKA M KASABA HOBLI
Location: HIGH SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
W/O S.R.NARAYANASWAMY
R/O SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.27/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
RSA No. 454 of 2025
HC-KAR
JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.110/2015 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The suit is filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. It is pleaded in the plaint that she is the absolute owner and peaceful possession and long term enjoyment over the land which is morefully described in the schedule and these properties are acquired through a grant made by the government Darkasth. Since then, they said Kalappa @ Agadur Munishamappa become the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he died very long back leaving behind his one son namely Byrappa who is the plaintiff's father-in-law after the death of Kalappa, the Byrappa has -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR become the absolute owner of the scheduled properties. The said Byrappa also died leaving behind his only son Munishamappa, husband of the plaintiff. The said Munishamappa has inherited the suit schedule properties as absolute owner and continued in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying tax and he died in the year 1985 leaving behind his wife Muniyamma i.e., plaintiff and after the death of her husband, the plaintiff has become absolute owner continued in possession over the property. The defendants have no right title over the suit schedule property but started interfering with their possession. They are also trying to deny the very good title of the plaintiff and hence sought for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons defendants appeared and filed written statement by denying all the plaint averments and claim of the plaintiff. Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties purchased by Chikkanarayanappa son of Kempanna, who is none other than senior uncle of 1st -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant through an absolute sale deed dated 10.08.1978 executed by Byrappa son of Munishamappa and to the said sale deed, the plaintiff also attested her signature being consent witness and further husband of the plaintiff and her father-in-law have sold the same to meet their family and legal necessities and since then the said Chikkanarayanappa become the absolute owner of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties as per MR No.7/1978-79 revenue entries were also transferred to his name by the revenue authorities. It is also contended that they were enjoying the properties as absolute owner and 1st defendant's father inherited the same and revenue entries also transferred, after his demise on 29.09.2003, the 1st defendant inherited the same and continues to be in possession of the same and in Item No.1 and his family to meet their family legal necessities have sold one gunta of land to 2nd defendant and now the 2nd defendant has been in possession of said one gunta of land. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. It is further contended that Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property purchased by the 1st defendant's father N.Muniyappa through an absolute registered sale deed dated 26.12.1986 executed by plaintiff's mother-in- law Mugemma @ Narasamma wife of Byrappa and her son plaintiff's husband Munishamappa and the revenue entries were also transferred in favour of Muniyappa. In the year 2003, he passed away and defendant No.1 inherited Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property and claimed the ownership over the suit schedule property by the defendant. All the revenue documents stands in their name. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendants framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court considering the material available on record, dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not proved the case and had accepted the case of the defendants that there was a sale on 10.08.1978 and Item No.3 of the suit -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR schedule property also purchased by the defendant's father Muniyappa from Mugemma @ Narasamma.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, present appeal is filed before this Court. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, framed the point for consideration whether the plaintiff is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and interference as well as judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. The Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, in detail discussed the same and in paragraph No.19 comes to the conclusion that during the cross-examination she stated that the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of husband, while transferring the property to the defendants wherein in order to grab the same and now admits that suit schedule property stands in the name of the defendants. But, P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed before the Court that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR schedule property and they are in possession. But, P.W.2 not subjected for cross-examination and only P.W.3 was subjected to cross-examination. The defendant No.1 is examined and D.W.1 reiterated the evidence and also particularly got marked the document Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 and claim is made that defendant No.2 in his evidence contend that defendants are owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and categorically deposed that Byrappa and Munishamappa have sold the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 is also examined as D.W.1 and reiterates the written statement averments and to substantiate the same, documents of Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 are marked.
5. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that land bearing Sy.No.123/3 measuring to an extent of 32 guntas and Item No.2 land bearing Sy.No.123/7 measuring 1-05 acres acquired by Chikkanarayanappa, who is none other than the husband -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR of plaintiff which were ancestral properties of Byrappa for lawful consideration. Basing on sale in favour of Chikkanarayanappa, the revenue entries were also transferred in favour of Chikkanarayanappa vide sale deed dated 10.08.1978 marked as Ex.D.1, Mutation extract marked as Ex.D.16 for the year 1987-1988, 1988-89, 1990-91. Chikkanarayanappa died leaving behind his daughter Smt.Jayamma who is the 2nd defendant in these proceedings. Thus, defendants herein being legal heirs of the deceased Chikkanarayanappa succeeded the said lands and the revenue entries transferred in favour of N.Muniyappa, who is no other than brother of Chikkanarayanappa in the year 1992. The said Muniyappa also died on 29.09.2003. The 1st defendant, being the legal heirs of N.Muniyappa succeeded the said land. After the death of Muniyappa, his son 1st defendant succeeded to 31 guntas and 2nd defendant inherited 1 guntas and in favour of 2nd defendant, said documents marked as Ex.D.39.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, particularly in paragraph No.24, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff in her plaint stated that suit property is granted in favour of Kalappa son of Adaguru Munishamappa in this regard. There is no grant certificate or saguvali chit and revenue records do not create any title of immovable properties. The Ex.P.2 to 20 are revenue records do not create any title in favour of the plaintiff. As on the date of the suit, the revenue records are standing in the name of defendants having presumptive value under Section 133 regarding entries in these records unless contrary is proved. The plaintiff has not placed any documents to show that the name of the defendants has been entered illegally. On perusal of Ex.D.1, Byrappa and Munishamappa have sold the suit schedule property Item No.1 and 2 in favour of Chikkanarayanappa. On perusal of Ex.D.2 reveals that Mugemma, Narayana and Munishamappa have sold Item No.3 in favour of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR Muniyappa. Ex.D.1 and D2 are the registered documents having presumptory value of the contents of the registered documents true and correct and the same is not disclosed by placing any evidence before the Court by the plaintiff and hence taken note of even lawful possession and interference by the defendants and also the same is disputed. Though, the suit survey number granted in the name of Kalappa as per plaint, she has not placed any document to that effect and having taken note of it, comes to the conclusion that the document does not prove any title in favour of the plaintiff and comes to the conclusion that defendants have made out the case, but plaintiffs have not placed any material to grant the relief of declaration and injunction. When the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of both oral and documentary evidence and comes to the conclusion that there was a sale and sale deeds are also executed and based on the said sale deed, all the properties stands in the name of defendants. When such finding is given by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46482 RSA No. 454 of 2025 HC-KAR Trial Court and Appellate Court considering the material record, I do not find any perversity and also both question of fact and question of law are considered by both the Courts and dismissed the suit and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Second Appeal is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51