[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishnappa vs Smt Lalithamma on 3 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
RSA No. 679 of 2009
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRISIDDAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.69
NAGASANDRANAGASANDRA
POST, BANGALORE - 560 073.
DEAD BY LRs
1a. SMT. MALLAMMA
AGED 76 YEARS.
1b. ANJANAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS.
Digitally signed 1c. KRISHNAIAH
by NANDINI M AGED 23 YEARS.
S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1d. SMT. AKKAYYAMMA
KARNATAKA AGED 47 YEARS.
1e. SMT. SARASWATHI
AGED 42 YEARS.
1f. SMT. MANGALAGOWRI
AGED 36 YEARS.
ALL ARE OF SRI ANJANAPPA NO.69
NAGASANDRA, NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU - 560 073.
2. KEMPANNA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
RSA No. 679 of 2009
HC-KAR
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI SIDDAIAH
R/AT BOKIPURA VILLAGE
DODDABELAVANGALA
HOBLI - 561 204
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
3. SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI SIDDAIAH
R/AT NO.69, NAGASANDRA
NAGASANDRA POST
BANGALORE - 560 073.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KESTHUR N. CHENDRA SHEKHER, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. LALITHAMMA
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O LATE SHRIH.S. NARAHYANA RAO
HUSKUR, DODDABELAVANGALA
HOBLI - 561 204, DODDABALLAPUR
TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
DEAD BY LRs.
1a. K.A. VIJAYALAKSHMI
AGED 60 YEARS.
1b. H.N. VENKATESH
AGED 58 YEARS.
1c. SEETHALAKSHMI
AGED 57 YEARS.
1d. H.N. SATISH KUMAR
AGED 55 YEARS.
1e. H.N. SRINIVAS
AGED 54 YEARS.
1f. H.N. PRAKASH
AGED 52 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
RSA No. 679 of 2009
HC-KAR
1g. H.N. VIJAYAKUMARI
AGED 50 YEARS.
ALL RESIDING AT HUSKUR
DODDBELAVANGALA HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 561 204.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. NARAYANA, ADV.)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 28.1.2009 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.73/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
& PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-V, BANGALORE (R)
DIST, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.3.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.
79/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.),
DODDABALLAPUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is
filed by the defendants with a prayer to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 14.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.79/2003 by the
Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Doddaballapur, and the judgment
and decree dated 28.01.2009 passed in R.A.No.73/2007 by the
District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru.
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.79/2003 with
prayer to declare her title in respect of the suit schedule
properties and also to grant the consequential relief of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody
claiming under or through them, from interfering or obstructing
with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the
suit schedule properties.
4. The defendants who had entered appearance in the said
suit, had filed their written statement and based on the rival
pleadings, the Trial Court had framed the issues. During the
course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were
examined as PWs-1 to 3 and 29 documents were marked as
Exs.P-1 to P-29. On behalf of the defendants, three witnesses
were examined as DWs-1 to 3 and 20 documents were marked
as Exs.D-1 to D-20.
5. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the
Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007
had decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
HC-KAR
the same, defendants had filed R.A.No.73/2007 before the First
Appellate Court which had dismissed the said appeal by
judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009. Assailing the
concurrent findings recorded in judgment and decree passed by
the courts below, the defendants are before this Court in this
regular second appeal.
6. This Court has admitted this second appeal to consider
the following substantial question of law:
"whether the courts below erred seriously in
not considering Ex.P-22 and Ex.D-1?"
7. Plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and
consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of two
items of property viz., Sy. No.52/1 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas
and Sy. No.52/2 measuring 4 acres 23 guntas both situated at
Bokipura, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
8. The defendants have not disputed the claim of the
plaintiff in respect of Item no.1 of the land, and with regard to
Item no.2 of the land, the defendants have contended that the
said property was granted to their father Siddaiah @
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
HC-KAR
Siddaramaiah under the Inams Abolition Act, during the year
1962.
9. The plaintiff has claimed right over Item no.2 of the suit
schedule properties under the sale deed dated 17.10.1964
(Ex.P-2) executed by V.Narayana Rao in her favour.
10. The son of the plaintiff has been examined before the
Trial Court as PW-1 and two independent witnesses were
examined as PW-2 & PW-3, who have categorically stated
about the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule properties.
11. According to the defendants, Item no.2 of the suit
schedule property was granted to their father Siddaiah @
Siddaramaiah, but they have failed to produce the grant order
before the Trial Court. The documents produced by them such
as Exs.D-16 to D-20 in support of their contention that the land
which was granted in favour of their father Siddaiah @
Siddaramaiah was subsequently re-numbered as Sy. No.52/2
are ambiguous and there is no inconsistency in the said
document. More over, the said documents are orders passed by
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
HC-KAR
the revenue authorities and the said documents can be relied
upon for collateral purpose and the said document itself cannot
be substantive evidence to deny the title of the plaintiff over
Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties, for which they have
registered sale deed in their favour executed in the year 1964.
Perusal of the written statement would go to show that the
same does not contain any pleading to the revenue documents
on which reliance is sought to placed by the
appellant/defendant. Any amount of documentary evidence in
the absence of pleadings is of no consequence. It is also
relevant to note here that all the revenue documents produced
by the defendant have come into existence after the suit was
filed.
12. The defendants have not examined any competent
revenue officer in support of their contention that the land
granted to their father Siddaiah @ Siddaramaiah and the land
bearing Sy. No.52/2 which is Item no.2 in the suit schedule
property are one and the same.
13. The material on record would go to show that based on
the sale deed dated 17.10.1964, the entries in respect of Item
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
HC-KAR
no.2 of the suit schedule properties were changed in the name
of the plaintiff, and at no point of time till the filing of the suit,
the defendants had challenged the said entry. The courts below
having appreciated all these aspects of the matter, have
recorded a concurrent finding against the appellants herein and
have held that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the
suit schedule properties.
14. In the written statement, the defendants having admitted
the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of Item
no.1 of the suit schedule properties, have denied that she is the
absolute owner of Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties,
and on the other hand, have claimed right over the same.
Therefore, the courts below were also justified in granting even
the consequential relief of permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff.
15. Since the plaintiff has established her right, title and
interest over the suit schedule properties based on Ex.P-2
which is a registered sale deed of the year 1964, solely on the
basis of certain observations made by the Revenue Officer in
Ex.P-22 which is also produced by the defendants as Ex.D-1,
NC: 2025:KHC:50550
HC-KAR
for the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the courts
below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
Therefore, I answer the substantial question of law framed in
this appeal in the negative.
16. A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has to be
decided on the substantial question of law framed by the court
under sub-section (4) of Section 100 CPC. The proviso to sub-
section (5) provides to hear appeal on any other substantial
question of law which was not initially framed by the High
Court, but no such additional substantial question of law has
been pointed out in this case by the parties to this appeal. The
scope in an appeal under Section 100 CPC is very limited and
this Court cannot entirely re-appreciate the evidence and
record any finding on the factual aspects of the case.
17. For all the above foregoing reasons, this second appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
