Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gouravva W/O. Narayan Singh vs Raghuveer S/O. Shrinivas Haragod on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
RSA No. 100624 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100624 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. NARAYAN SINGH,
GOURAVVA D/O. HANUMANT SINGH FAKIRSINGH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S.
1. SMT. RUKMINIBAI
PARASHURAM SINGH SAMPAGAONKAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BANNI ONI, NAVALOOR, DHARWAD-580009.
2. SMT. REKHA W/O. MALTESH JAMADAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VEERABHADRESHWAR NAGAR,
GUTTAL, TALUKA: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
3. SMT. RENUKABAI RAJUSINGH RAJAPUT,
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BENCH
R/O. LANDAKANAHALLI, CHIPGI,
TALUKA: SIRSI-581401.
4. HANUMANT SINGH S/O. NARAYAN SINGH,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. INDOOR, TALUKA: MUNDGOD-581349.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
RSA No. 100624 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. RAGHUVEER S/O. SHRINIVAS HARAGOD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. INDOOR,
TALUKA: MUNDGOD (U.K)-581349.
2. RAMASINGH S/O. SHRINIVAS HARAGOD,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. INDOOR,
TALUKA: MUNDGOD (U.K)-581349.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2024
DISMISSING REGULAR APPEAL NO.5015/2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, WHERE UNDER CONFIRMED THE
ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 IN O.S.NO.52/2017 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, YELLAPUR SITTING AT
MUNDAGOD AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
RSA No. 100624 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Even though the matter is listed for hearing of the Interlocutory Application, it is heard on merits.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 in R.A.No.5015/2023 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar sitting at Sirsi (in short 'first appellate court') wherein the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2023 in O.S.No.52/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur, sitting at Mundgod (in short 'trial court') is confirmed.
3. The parties would be referred to their ranks as they were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
4. Initially plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 have filed suit against defendant Nos.1 & 2 praying for the relief of declaration that defendant No.1 has no absolute right, title and interest in or over suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.235 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas out of total extent of 4 acres 20 guntas -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR situated at Indoor village, Mundagod Taluk; sale deed dated 12.07.2001 is null and void and inoperative in law, plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property.
5. The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is that one Hanumanth Singh son of Fakir Singh Mugali, was the father of plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2. He died on 03.09.1983 leaving behind his only daughter-plaintiff No.1. From revenue records, it is seen that based on the Will, Khata of suit schedule property was mutated into the name of defendant No.2. There is no valid Will executed by Hanumanth Singh. Hanumanth Singh, the father of plaintiff No.1 has not executed any such Will. Hence, defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest to alienate suit schedule property to defendant No.1. During November-2017, defendant No.1 interfered with peaceful possession and -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR enjoyment of plaintiffs over suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for appropriate relief.
6. After service of summons, defendant No.1 filed his written statement, wherein he contended that the description of suit schedule property is incorrect. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. Hanumanth Singh had executed registered Will dated 11.04.1972 in favour of defendant No.2 and his wife-Smt.Rindavva. After his death, defendant No.2 has given application to revenue authorities to mutate his name. Accordingly, as per M.E.No.1701 dated 25.09.1983 name of defendant No.2 was entered and he became absolute owner of the property by virtue of Will. Defendant No.2 was minor at that time and represented by his mother-Gouravva (plaintiff No.1). Based on it, defendant No.2 sold suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 12.07.2001 to defendant No.1 for valid sale consideration amount of ₹64,000/-. Accordingly, M.E.No.2470 was certified and name of defendant No.1 entered in R.T.Cs. He is in possession and -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR enjoyment of suit schedule property and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the deceased Hanumanth had not executed any Will in favour of D.2 in respect of suit property and alleged Will is in valid and in-
operative as contended?
2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the
alleged sale deed dated 12/07/2001
executed by defendant No.2 in favor of
defendant No.1 in respect of suit property is null and void and in-operative in law?
3) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in actual physical possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit?
4) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged obstructions of defendants from enjoyment of suit property by them?
5) Whether this suit is well within the period of limitation?
6) Whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR
7) Whether this suit is suffering from non-
joinder of necessary parties and non inclusion of the necessary properties?
8) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he is bonafide purchaser of suit property for valuable consideration?
9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit as sought for?
10) What order or decree?"
8. After framing of issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments, the trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove that deceased Hanumanth Singh has not executed the Will in favour of defendant No.2; defendant No.2 has valid right, title and interest to execute registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of suit scheduled property and not plaintiffs. Further, the suit is barred by law of limitation and thereby dismissed the suit. The trial Court by making observation about the oral and documentary evidence put forth before it has come to the above said conclusion.
9. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the legal representatives of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 have filed the appeal -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR which is registered in R.A.No.5015/2023 before first appellate court.
10. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of trial court holding that plaintiffs have failed to prove their contention and the suit is apparently barred by limitation.
11. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts, the plaintiffs/appellants are before this Court. The admitted facts of the case are that, one Hanumanth Singh was owner of the suit schedule property. According to revenue documents produced by defendant No.1, as per M.E.No.1701, Sy.Nos.234 and 235 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas were mutated into the names of defendant No.2 and his grandmother-Rindavva, the wife of Hanumanth Singh Mugali based on the registered Will executed by Hanumanth Singh. At that time, this defendant No.2 was minor and represented by minor guardian. Hanumanth Singh died on 03.09.1983; on 25.09.1983 the order of revenue officer was passed. Before -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR that notice was issued and on 18.09.1983 Rindavva has submitted no objection to enter the name of defendant No.2 represented by his minor guardian i.e., Smt.Gouravva. In that document Sy.No.235 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas was given to defendant No.2.
12. Based on these revenue entries, the R.T.Cs. were mutated into the name of defendant No.2 in respect of Sy.No.235 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas. It continued in his name, till he sold it to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 the purchaser of Sy.No.235 measuring 2 acres out of 4 acres 20 guntas has produced the registered sale deed dated 12.07.2001 as per Ex.D.4. It reveals that this document is signed by defendant No.2 and his mother-plaintiff No.1. Thus, plaintiff No.1 was fully aware about sale of the property by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 on the date of sale deed itself i.e. on 12.07.2001 itself. She has filed the suit for declaration in the year 2017 that said sale date is null and void.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to obtain the relief of declaration, the period of limitation is three years, when the right to sue is accrued. On the date of sale deed itself plaintiff No.1 was fully aware about execution of the sale deed, because it is duly signed by her. Hence, within three years from the date of sale deed, she has not filed the suit. But she has filed the suit in the year 2017 i.e. 16 years after execution of the sale deed. Even if the contention as pleaded in the plaint is taken into consideration, during lifetime of his mother, plaintiff No.2 will not get any right over the property. Because, if his contention is taken as correct that his grandfather has not executed any Will, then it would be succeeded by plaintiff No.1 and during her lifetime, he would not get any right over suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, definitely, the suit filed by plaintiffs is barred by limitation and it was considered by the First Appellate Court.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the Will in question has not been proved in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR accordance with law and therefore defendant No.1 would not acquire any right over the suit schedule property. However, it is to be noted that plaintiff No.1, on behalf of defendant No.2, had submitted an application for mutation of Sy. No.234 & 235 in the name of defendant No.2, as minor guardian, by stating that the deceased Hanumanth Singh had bequeathed the property under the Will in favour of defendant No.2. It is also stated in the said application that the said application was accompanied with the original Will.
15. Based on those documents, the property was mutated into the name of defendant No.2 in the year 1983 itself. The said mutation entry was never challenged till the year 2017. On the basis of this mutation entry, the name of defendant No.2 continued in the revenue records and after the sale in favour of defendant No.1, his name was also entered in respect of 2 acres of Sy.No.235. These entries continued from 1983 till 2017. Therefore, at this stage, the question of proving the Will by defendant No.2 does not arise, particularly when the mutation was effected long ago and plaintiff No.1
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR was fully aware of the same and she herself produced said Will before the revenue authorities for mutation.
16. Considering these aspects, Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.
17. Insofar as I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the delay. The only ground urged by appellant No.4 in the affidavit annexed to the application is that, due to ill-health and financial difficulties the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. Even the nature of ill-health of appellant No.4 is not mentioned in the affidavit and no medical records are produced to substantiate the alleged ill-health. Further, appellant No.4 alone has stated such reason, whereas appellants No.1 to 3 have not assigned any reason for the delay. The ill-health of appellant No.4 alone
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985 RSA No. 100624 of 2025 HC-KAR cannot be a ground to condone the delay on behalf of all the appellants.
18. Insofar as financial condition of appellant No.4 is concerned, the court fee of only Rs.25/- is paid on the appeal. Hence, the plea of financial difficulty is also not convincing.
19. Hence, I.A. No.1/2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.
20. Consequently, the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as barred by limitation and also on merits, without issuing notice to the respondents.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE SSP:Para 1 to 14 gab:Para 15 to end CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21