Karnataka High Court
Sri Arechandrappa vs Smt Venkatalakshmamma on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49064
RSA No. 328 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI ARECHANDRAPPA
S/O NAGANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDENT OF CHATTENAHALLI
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 121.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J. ARAVIND BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE MUTHANNA
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/A CHATTENAHALLI VILLAGE
COURT OF HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI
KARNATAKA
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 121.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.54/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MADHUGIRI DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.03.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.95/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC KORATAGERE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49064
RSA No. 328 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 24.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by the defendant.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant seeking to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the propositus Arechandarappa had five sons namely Beeranna, Chikkanna, Naganna (father of defendant), Adavanna and Kariyanna. Beeranna had two sons namely Muttanna and Doddaiah. Chikkanna had two sons namely Arechandarappa (defendant) and Naganna. Adavanna had a son namely Muttanna (husband of plaintiff) who was -3- NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR mentally retarded person and wandering in the village. After death of Arechandarappa, his sons divided the suit schedule properties orally and subsequently, a Palupatti dated 19.04.1981 came into existence. In the partition, the suit schedule properties along with other properties were allotted to fourth son Adavanna i.e., father-in-law of the plaintiff. During the time of division, Adavanna was not alive, hence his share was given to Naganna i.e. the third son of Arechandrappa. In the meantime, Muttanna s/o Adavanna was unheard due to his mental weakness and there was also a recital in the partition that, if Muttanna returns to the village, he has to be put in possession of the property allotted to his share. With such understanding, the possession of the suit schedule properties was given to defendant's father - Naganna by way of permissive possession.
4. After, couple of years, said Muttanna returned to the village and his share of properties were handed over to him. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR property. Later, the said Muttanna died in the year 1995 leaving behind his wife (plaintiff) as his sole legal heir.
5. Things stood thus, the plaintiff after her marriage with Muttanna came to know that a Will has been executed by her husband on 24.08.1981 in respect of suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant. However, the same was cancelled on 08.08.1990 and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, after the death of her husband, the defendant has got changed the revenue entries with respect to suit schedule properties on the strength of the Will dated 24.08.1981, though the same was cancelled subsequently. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
6. On service of summons, defendant appeared and filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint by contending that at the time of partition, Muttanna (husband of the plaintiff) was sound and was not in the village, as such, his share was given to the defendant on condition that the same shall be handed over -5- NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR to Muttanna once he returns to the Village. Accordingly, when Muttanna returned to the village, the suit schedule properties were handed over to Muttanna. The plaintiff though married Muttanna, was not living with him and she left the company of Muttanna. Thereafter, the father of the defendant was taking care of Muttanna and hence, he executed a registered Will dated 24.08.1981 and bequeathed the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant. As such, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title, much less possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant was in settled possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 27 years. Accordingly, he perfected his title over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, decreed the suit. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR
8. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.
9. I have heard Sri.J.Aravind Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant. Respondent though served, remained unrepresented.
10. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred while decreeing the suit without appreciating the fact that ever since from the date of partition, the husband of the plaintiff was mentally retarded person and wandering in the village and the suit schedule properties were in the possession and cultivation of the defendant. Though the said Muttanna married the plaintiff, at no point of time, they lived together. The plaintiff left the company of her husband in the year 1991 itself. Ever since, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In such -7- NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR circumstance, the plaintiff filed the suit only for declaration and injunction without claiming possession. Thus, the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
11. Further contended that to prove the possession of the suit schedule properties by the defendant, DWs.1 to 3 have categorically stated to that effect and the Will-Ex.D1 and RTC extracts clearly establish that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule properties. In such circumstance, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
12. To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the following judgments.
1. UNION OF INDIA V/s IBRAHIM UDDIN AND ANOTHER - (2012) 8 SCC 148.
2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST, VIRUDHUNAGARA V/s CHANDRAN AND OTHERS - AIR 2017 SC 1034 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
14. As could be gathered from records, the relationship between the parties and the partition of the properties belonging to the propositus - Arechandrappa vide Palupatti dated 19.04.1981 are not in dispute. The allotment of suit schedule properties to the share of plaintiff's husband - Muttanna is also not in dispute.
15. It is the case of the defendant that, immediately after partition, on 24.08.1981 the plaintiff's husband executed a Will in favour of the defendant in respect of suit schedule properties and thereafter, though the plaintiff married said Muttanna, she was not living with him and left his company. As such, the defendant continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR
16. However, according to the plaintiff, the Will dated 24.08.1981 executed by said Muttanna in favour of the defendant was cancelled vide registered Deed dated 08.08.1990 as per Ex.P14. Thereafter, the plaintiff and her husband continued in possession of the suit schedule properties by cultivating the same. To substantiate the said aspect, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and deposed to said effect. She has categorically stated in her cross-examination that the suit schedule properties are in her possession. She specifically denied the suggestion that the suit schedule properties are in the possession of the defendant. Though the defendant raised a contention that the suit schedule properties are in his possession ever since 1981 by virtue of the Will, the said contention of the defendant was nullified by the plaintiff by placing reliance on Ex.P14 - Cancellation Deed, which clearly depicts that in the year 1990, the husband of the plaintiff cancelled the Will dated 24.08.1981 and he was put in possession of the same. Further, the recital in Ex.P14 clearly reveals that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR the defendant did not look after said Muttanna by providing him basic necessities. As such, it could be presumed that, except for that reason, there was no reason for him to cancel the Will.
17. Further, the defendant did not dispute the marriage of plaintiff with said Muttanna. Thus, it is clear that in the year 1981-82, said Muttanna returned to the village and he was in put in possession of the suit schedule properties and thereafter, he cancelled the Will in the year 1990. DW.1 in his cross examination pleaded ignorance in respect of cancellation of the Will and categorically admitted that, till the year 1985, he was on treatment and he was cultivating his share of the property. This portion of the evidence corroborates the testimony of PW.2 who is none other than the cousin of defendant and deceased Muttanna who categorically stated that the said Muttanna was cultivating his share of properties and he was in good terms with his wife i.e. the plaintiff and also he was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR present at the time of cancellation of the Will. The relevant portion of the cross examination of PW.2 reads as under:
"ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ¤UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ°¤AzÀ®Æ EA¢UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÄà C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ DvÀ£À D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ¸Áé¢üãÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ. 10/12 ªÀµÀð ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
18. By plain reading of the above portion of the evidence it is clear that the plaintiff and her husband were in possession of the suit schedule properties till the death of her husband and thereafter, she continued in possession of the same.
19. Further, on perusal of the evidence on record, it is unequivocally established that the husband of the plaintiff cancelled the Will executed in favour of the defendant and continued in possession of the suit schedule properties. Since the partition and the relationship of the plaintiff with said Muttanna is not disputed, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable. In that view of the matter, both the Trial
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49064 RSA No. 328 of 2019 HC-KAR Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by declaring the ownership and granting injunction. I find no question of law much less the substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44