Karnataka High Court
Sadananda vs Muniyamma Since Dead By Her Lrs on 25 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
RSA No. 770 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.770 OF 2011 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SADANANDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O JANARDHANAIAH
2. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O JANARDHANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI SADANANDA
THE 1ST APPELLANT.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TQ.
Digitally ...APPELLANTS
signed by (BY SRI H P LEELADHAR & CO, ADVOCATE)
MALATESH
KC
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. MUNIYAMMA
KARNATAKA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
1(a) GOPALA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
1(b) SHARADHAMMA
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
RSA No. 770 of 2011
1(c) PARVATHI
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(d) JAYAMMA
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SL.NO.1(a) to (1d) ARE
RESIDING AT KUMBALAGUDU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
2. GOPALA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
3. NARASIMHAIAH @ PAPANNA
DIED ON 05.06.2007
4. SMT. LAKKAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAIAH
DIED ON 20.11.09
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 WERE
WIFE AND HUSBAND DIED LEAVING
THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
a) SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O RAMANNA
D/O LATE NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TQ.
SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
AMENDED AS PER THE COURTS ORDER
DT.10.07.2024
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
RSA No. 770 of 2011
4(a)1 SRI RAMANNA
S/O VENKATARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
4(b)2 SRI RANGASWAMY
S/O SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
4(c)3 SRI MANJU
S/O SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUMBALAGUDU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI, MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KUMBALAGUDU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074
b). SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O VENKATARANGAIAH
D/O LATE NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO.100, GUBBI TOWN,
BELADHA BEEDI
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5. THOPANAIAH
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
RSA No. 770 of 2011
AMENDED AS PER THE COURTS ORDER
DT.10.07.2024
6(1). SMT. RENUKA
W/O GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
6(2) SMT.MANJULA
D/O GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
6(3) SMT.DHAKASHAYANI
D/O GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6(4) SMT.RAJESHWARI
D/O GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
6(5) SRI PURUSHOTHAM
S/O GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
6(6) SRI LOKESH
S/O GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KUMBALAGUDU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074
7. SMT. LAKKAMMA
W/O GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
RSA No. 770 of 2011
8. SMT.SHANTHALAKSHMI
W/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.23,
KRISHNAIAH GALLIK
COTTONPET
BANGALORE CITY
9. ESWARARANGAIAH
S/O LATE RANGADASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A KUMBALAGUDU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
AMENDED AS PER THE COURTS ORDER
DT.10.07.2024
9(a) SRI JAYAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
D/O LATE ESWARARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
9(b) SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE ESWARARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
9(c) SRI NANJAPPA
S/O LATE ESWARARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9(d) SRI RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE ESWARARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KUMBALAGODU VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 060
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
RSA No. 770 of 2011
10. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A NO. 402, SHARADA VEENA MANDIRA ROAD,
MYSORE BANK COLONY,
BANGALORE
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
AMENDED AS PER THE COURTS ORDER
DT.10.07.2024
10(a) SRI NAGARAJ
S/O NANJAPPA AND SAVITHRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
10(b) SRI LOHITH KUMAR
S/O NANJAPPA AND SAVITHRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.164, 5TH MAIN ROAD
GIRINAGARA
BDA LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.R.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO D) AND R2;
SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R7;
SRI G.DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R9(A TO D);
R3 AND R4 ARE DEAD AS PER THE CAUSETITLE
R4(B) - SERVED;
SRI M.RADHAKRISHNA AND SRI B.D.MISHRA, ADVOCATES FOR
R6(1 TO 3, 5 AND 6);
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.07.2024, R8, R4(A)(i to iii), R6(4),
R10(A And B) ARE CALLED OUT ABSENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.2.2011 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.263/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 11.8.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.342/1996
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
RSA No. 770 of 2011
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri H.P Leeladhar, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Maruti, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per
their ranking before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in the present
second appeal.
4. A suit came to be filed initially for the relief of permanent
injunction by the plaintiffs in O.S No.342/1996 on the file of the
Addl. II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru, in respect of three bits of land. Later on, during
pendency of the suit, plaint got amended to include the prayer
for declaration. Three bits of land are referred to as 'A', 'B' &
'C' schedule properties.
5. For ready reference, same is culled out here under:
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
SCHEDULE
1. 'A' schedule:- Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.119/2A
measuring 0-10 guntas bounded on the :
East by : Janatha Colony Houses,
West by : Late Bhagyamma's land,
North by :Gramatana sites, belonging to
plaintiff bearing No.93,
South by :Venkatarangappa's land in same
survey number.
2. 'B' schedule:- Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.119/2A
measuring 0-07 ½ guntas bounded on the :
East by : Janatha Colony Houses,
West by : Puttamma's land,
North by :Venkatarangappa's land in same
survey number,
South by :Smt. Lakkamma's land.
3. 'C' schedule:- Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.119/2A
measuring 0-06 ¾ guntas bounded on the :
East by : Old Mysore Road,
West by : Janatha Colony houses,
North by :Muthappa's Hithalu,
South by :Road.
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
All the items A to C are situated at Kumbalgudu village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore District.
6. Suit, on contest, came to be dismissed holding that
plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the owners of three bits
of land, referred to supra, having regard to the alienation made
by the plaintiffs which is evident by the registered sale deed
and revenue records having been mutated after each and every
sale in the name of subsequent purchasers.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal in
R.A No.263/2005. In the appeal, plaintiffs, in order to
overcome the findings recorded by the trial court filed an
application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to place additional evidence on record.
8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after affording
sufficient opportunity for the parties and hearing the parties in
detail, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs, inter alia, holding
in paragraph Nos.24 to 28, as under:
"24. The location of 6¼ guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2A as
described in the schedule C appended to the plaint is not
at all made out. The very identity of C schedule land is in
serious dispute. Apart from this, the plaintiffs have
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
thoroughly failed to prove that they are the owners of
schedule A and schedule B lands as described in the
schedule appended to the plaint and Ex.P.23 which is a
supporting document to explain the boundaries. In fact,
6¾ guntas of land in Sy.No.119/24 is sub divided and
shown as 2A2 and names of Savithramma wife of
Nanjappa and Eshwararangaiah son of Rangadasappa are
found as kathedars and this is evident from Ex.D.12. This
Eshwararangaiah is none other than the 9th defendant and
Savithramma is none other than 10th defendant. The
revenue records have been suitably rectified after durasti
work conducted by the survey authorities on the basis of
respective sale deeds. Demarcation has taken place
according to the sale deeds. P.W.1 has admitted about the
sale deeds marked as Ex.D.3 to D5 but has feigned
ignorance about the boundaries mentioned therein. It is
ununderstandable as to how the plaintiffs could lay a
claim over the schedule property when they had already
sold the land they had in Sy.No.119/2A.
25. Name of Lakkamma wife of Gopal 7th defendant is
found in RTC marked as Ex.P.9 of Sy.No.119/2A to an
extent of 10 guntas. Savithramma has sold 6¼ guntas of
land in Sy.No.119/2A. This is sub divided as
Sy.No.119/2A2 vide registered sale deed dated 15.6.1996
through Ex.D.101 and the southern boundaries are
mentioned as Thopanaiah's property. The said Thopanaiah
is none other than the son of first defendant Muniyamma
and late Krishnappa. Therefore, the name of Thopanaiah
found in Ex.D.101 as the person holding land on the
northern side and the western side cannot be considered
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
as Thopanaiah paternal father of the plaintiff who died
long back but the fifth defendant Thopanaiah.
26. Savithramma had purchased 6¼ guntas of land in
Sy.No.119/2A property numbered as Sy.No.119/2A2 vide
sale deed dated 3.1.1992 from G.Narayana foster son of
Smt.Manikyamma. Name of G.Narayana is found as
kathedar vide MR.No.13/91-92 as per Ex.P.10, RTC
produced by the very plaintiffs. In fact, Smt. Manikyamma
had purchased 6¼ guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2A
through registered sale deed 19.10.1959 from Thopanaiah
son of Thopegowda, Krishnappa and Narasimhaiah son of
Thopegowda. This is found in Ex.D.98. As already stated
by me, Ex.D.100 is the sale deed dated 03.01.1992
executed by G.Narayana in favour of Savithramma.
27. Ex.D.39 is the sale deed executed by Smt. Lakkamma
in favour of M.Gopalakrishna on 2.9.1977 pertaining to 10
guntas of land in Sy.No. 119/2A.
28. In fact, the defendants have furnished over whelming
evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiffs. On the
other hand, plaintiffs on whom the initial burden of
proving the title in respect of schedule properties had
been cast, have thoroughly failed to prove the same. In
fact, the very identity of the property over which the
reliefs are sought by the plaintiffs is in dispute and on
analysing the documentary evidence placed on record by
the defendants more especially Ex.D.3 to destroyed their
case.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
9. In paragraph No.29, learned judge in the First
Appellate Court dealt with how not an additional evidence
is relevant to the case, as under:
29. The documents now sought to be produced as
additional evidence have no bearing or reliance to the
facts of the case. In the light of specific boundaries
mentioned in Ex.D.3 to D5, plaintiffs have thoroughly
failed to prove that they are the owners of schedule A,
B,C properties as described in the schedule and that they
are in lawful possession of the same. In fact, the learned
Civil Judge has considered the entire materials placed on
record in right perspective. Even on appreciation of the
evidence placed on record, I am of the considered opinion
that no other opinion could be arrived at. The plaintiffs
have not been able to make out a case that the trial Court
has erred in analysing the oral and documentary
evidence. In fact, documentary evidence prevails over oral
evidence. As discussed by me Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 are
decisive documents which cut the case of the plaintiffs at
the root. Majority of the documents now sought to be
adduced have already been produced by the defendants in
the form of Ex.D.98 to 101 original sale deeds. Apart from
this, the plaintiffs have not made out special grounds as
to why they could not produce these documents before
the trial Court. It is not as though the plaintiffs had no
knowledge about these documents. Even if these
documents are allowed to be brought on record, they do
not take away the evidence already let in more especially
the boundaries mentioned in Ex.D3 to D4 and Ex. D98 and
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
the clear admission of P.W.1 in his oral evidence. Hence,
I.A. filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be dismissed.
Hence, point No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative."
10. Being further aggrieved by the same, unsuccessful
plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal on the following
grounds:
The impugned judgment and decree passed by the court
below is opposed to all cannons of law, facts and
circumstances of the case, as such, it is liable to be
reverse and set-aside.
The impugned judgment and decree of the court below is
perverse, vexatious besides being illegal, as such, it is
liable to be reversed and set- aside.
The court below has erred in not appreciating Ex.P3 to
P15 in respect of the Sy.No.119/2A, wherein, the
appellants and their parents name has been shown at
Col.No.12(2) of Ex.P3 to P15, which having a presumption
under law under section 133 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, as such, impugned judgment and decree is
perverse, vexatious besides being illegal.
The court below has erred to see that, Thopannaiah the
grand father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 is the son of
Thopegowda and the schedule property is the ancestral
property of the plaintiff and their parents and further, the
court below is also failed to see that, the Thopannaiah
having son by name Janardhanaiah, who having wife by
name Lakshmamma, who are the parents of plaintiff No.1
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
and 2, this aspect has not been considered by the court
below and pass the impugned judgment and decree
capriciously.
The court below has failed to see about the admission
made by the Defendant No.1 admitting that, the suit
schedule properties fell into the share of the father of the
plaintiff and in possession and enjoyment of 17% guntas
and 6¼ guntas in Sy.No.119/2A and this aspect neither
considered nor appreciated by the court below and passed
the impugned judgment and decree.
The court below has no where discussed or appreciated
the evidence of DW1 to 4, who are contradicting each
other about their right, title and interest and possession of
the property. When in fact, it is an undisputed fact
Sy.No.119/2A, total measuring 2 acres 18½ guntas, out
of which, 1 acre acquired the government for the
formation of sites to the Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes people and 20 guntas sold the Parameswaraiah and
4 guntas sold to Galappa and that aspect has not been
looked into by the court below and has passed the
impugned judgment and decree arbitrarily.
The entire judgment and decree passed by the court
below without discussing and appreciating the rival
contention put forward by the parties to the proceedings
and the final conclusion of the court below, as such, the
impugned judgment and decree is not a speaking
judgment and decree and it is liable to be reverse and
set-aside.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
The court below has failed to see that, the sale deed
Ex.D5 does not belongs to the suit A- Schedule property
and this aspect has not been considered by the court
below and has passed the judgment and decree, which is
of perverse and vexatious.
The court below has erred in not appreciating the sale
deed Ex.D29 and 30, D41, D73, D98, which are
contradictory and inconsisting to each other to the suit
schedule properties. When that being the case, those
documents does not confer any right, title or interest of
the respective purchaser and that aspect has not been
considered by the court below and has passed the
impugned judgment and decree, which is illegal and
contrary to law, hence, it is liable to be reverse and set-
aside.
The court below has failed to see that, the authorities
relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his case are
relevant to the case on hand and that aspect has not been
considered and passed the impugned judgment and
decree.
The court below has not considered Ex.P26 the judgment
and decree in O.SNo.409/1993 and also Ex.D36 and 37
judgment and decree in O.S.No.534/1996 and
No.181/1995, which having crucial bearing on the case on
the hand and has been over looked by the court below
and has passed the judgment and decree, which is
perverse and illegal, hence, it is liable to be set-aside.
The court below has failed to see that, the cross
examination of PW2 pertaining to property bearing
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
No.119/2 and there is not dispute regarding the suit
schedule property and this aspect has not been
considered by the court below and has passed the
judgment and decree which is perverse and without
application of mind.
The court below has failed to appreciate Ex.P6 and P7,
Ex.P8, Ex.P19, 13 and 15, Ex.P10 and Ex.P.16 and Khata
and without appreciating the said fact, the Hon'ble Court
has erred in coming to the conclusion "that there is not
sufficient documents before this court to substantiate the
claim of plaintiff, who are in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property as absolute owner
thereof" which is not only a perverse and contrary to the
documents produced.
Even otherwise the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the court below without application of mind to
the facts and materials placed on hand by the plaintiff, as
such, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be
set- aside.
The first appellate court has erred in commencing its
judgment on the plea "according the plaintiff suit schedule
properties has fallen to the share of Janardhanaiah, 1 acre
of land in Sy.No.119/2A has been gifted by Krishnappa,
Narasimaiah and Thopanaiah for the members of schedule
caste to form residential sites in the said land of 1 acre
there is no pleading in that aspect and started the
judgment on the presumption that the plaintiffs having
suit schedule property alone is his property is totally
incorrect.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
Both the court below failed to see that, Sy.No.119/2A of
Kumbalagodu Village measuring 2 acres 18¼ guntas after
acquisition of the land measuring 1 acre for Ashraya
Housing Scheme and further there is no dispute the said
property belongs to Thopanaiah and his ancestors and it is
also there is no dispute that, Thopanaiah and others sold
0-20 guntas to Paramashivaiah and 0-4 guntas to
Galappa. When that being the case, the rest of the land
measuring 34¼ guntas of land and the it is further
revealed in the documents Ex.D11 RTC, D12, D13 and
D14, also reveals that the name of Janardhanaiah is found
in Col.No.9 and 12(2) of the RTC and this aspect has not
been appreciated by both the court below and passed the
judgment and decree.
The court below also failed to see that, the suit for
declaration declaring the schedule property belongs to the
plaintiffs, when there is no dispute regarding title and
possession the findings of both the court below is
arbitrary and without application of mind.
The trial court was erred in passing on the judgment and
decree with the presumption that the suit is for
permanent injunction and the plaintiff has not proved
about their lawful possession, as such, Issue No.1 and 2
and the additional Issue No.1 has not been proved and
the appellate court instead of remanding the said appeal
for proper appreciation by the court below has passed the
judgment and decree confirming the judgment and decree
of the trial court, which is not only illegal, but also
contrary to law.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
The court below has failed to see that, the rough sketch
produced by the plaintiff which is marked as Ex.P23,
which is in consolence with the plaint schedule and
pleading that aspect has not been considered by the court
below while passing the impugned judgment there by
passed the impugned order.
The court below also failed to see that, without adverting
the probate value of RTC and Rough Sketch and
relationship of the parties to the suit has erred in passing
the impugned judgment and decree has passed the
impugned order without application of mind."
11. Following substantial questions of law are raised in the
appeal:
"i) Whether the 1st appellate court is justified in confirming
the judgment and decree of the trial court, when the trial
court pass a judgment and decree on the presumption of
permanent injunction?
ii) Whether the findings of both the court below justified in
not considering the evidential value of Ex. P11 to P1, when
there is a presumption about the said document, thereby
passed impugned judgment and decree illegally?
iii) Whether the court below under the facts and
circumstances of the case failed to mould the relief as
contemplated under law taking into consideration of
materials of record?
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
iv) Whether the court below has justified in confirming the
judgment and decree of the trial court contrary to the
Exhibits produced before the court below?"
12. Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for the appellants
reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of Second
Appeal vehemently contended that both the Courts have
misdirected themselves in appreciating the probative value of
the sale deeds produced as per Exs.D-2, D-3 and D-4 and
contended that said sales were in respect of land in
Sy.No.119/2 and not in respect of Sy.No.119/2A and therefore,
defendants claim to resist the suit of the plaintiffs is incorrect
and therefore, sought for admitting the appeal with the
aforesaid substantial questions of law.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents supports the impound judgments.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal
clear that the land in original Sy.No.119 was subsequently
divided into 119/2 and subsequently as 119/2A on account of
sale deeds which were executed.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
16. Plaintiffs have lodged claim in respect of three bits of
land, as referred to supra.
17. Learned Trial Judge and also the learned judge in the first
appellate Court bestowed their best attention to the said aspect
of the matter.
18. Sale deeds have been executed intermittently and
property got divided and revenue entries are effected to
Sy.No.119/2 and thereafterwards revenue entries have been
mutated as 119/2A and thereafterwards as 119/2A2.
19. The relevant entries in the mutation register extracts are
much earlier to filing of the suit and cause of action paragraph
in the plaint is silent with regard to revenue entries that were
effected about two decades earlier to filing of the suit.
20. The cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as
under:
"The cause of action for the suit arose on 30.05.1996
when the defendants attempted to interfere with plaintiff's
peaceful possession over plaint schedule at Kumbalagudu
village, Bangalore South Taluk, within the jurisdiction of
this Hon'ble Court."
21. As could be seen from the above paragraph, contentions
urged by the plaintiffs are vague and not specific. Revenue
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
entries marked on behalf of defendants would clearly go to
show that mutation has taken place much earlier to filing of the
suit and as per the registered sale deed executed in their
favour.
22. The contentions urged on behalf of the appellants in this
appeal that Exs.D-2 to 4, i.e., in respect of Sy.No.119/2 is
obviously found to be true, inasmuch as on the date of sale it
was having number as 119/2 only. Thereafterwards, on the
basis of the sale deeds and revenue entries, it has been
classified as 119/2A and thereafterwards as 119/2A2.
23. Therefore, contention urged on behalf of the appellants
that the trial court and the learned Judge in the First Appellate
Court have misread the probative value of the sale deeds
produced and marked as Exs.D2 to D4 cannot be countenanced
in law.
24. Plaintiffs have failed to prove title over the suit property
which is sine qua non for decreeing the suit for declaration and
injunction.
25. Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have
categorically recorded the finding that the defendants have
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30076
furnished overwhelming evidence to disprove the case of the
plaintiffs, which has been based on the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record.
26. Having regard to the scope of the Second Appeal, as is
found in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court
is of the considered opinion that grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum to support the substantial questions of law
referred to supra are hardly sufficient to interfere with the well
reasoned orders of this Court as well as the judgment of the
First Appellate Court.
27. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that
none of the substantial questions of law referred to supra would
merit for further consideration.
28. In view of the foregoing reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is merit less and is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Kcm/List No.: 2 Sl (V SRISHANANDA)
No.: 30 JUDGE
