[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M.P. Sugandappa vs S. Jayadeva Shastry on 17 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2211 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2196 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
IN RSA NO.2211/2023:
BETWEEN:
M.P. SUGANDAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. NETRAVATHI
W/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O SALUR VILLAGE,
ANJANAPURA HOBLI,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
2. CHAITRA PATIL W/O LOHIT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF D/O M.P. SUGANDAPPA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O GONDI CHATNAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577216.
3. MANJUNATH PATIL M S
S/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O SALUR VILLAGE,
ANJANAPURA HOBLI,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. KASHIVISHWANATHA
S/O M G PALAKSHAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O SALUR VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. JAYADEVA SHASTRY
S/O MAHABALA SHASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/O S.S.ROAD, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
2. S. NIRANJANA SHASTRY
S/O NAGABHUSHAN SHASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O DODDAPETE, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
3. B.G. MALTESH (BHANDARI)
S/O GIDDAPPA BHANDARI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O SANKRI REVENNARAKERI
SHIKARIPURA TOWN AND TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.38/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 03.07.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.11/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA AND
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN RSA NO.2196/2023:
BETWEEN:
M.P. SUGANDAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. NETRAVATHI
W/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O SALUR VILLAGE
ANJANAPURA HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
2. CHAITRA PATIL W/O LOHIT
D/O M.P. SUGANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O GONDI CHATNAHALLI
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577216.
3. MANJUNATH PATIL M.S.
S/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O SALUR VILLAGE
ANJANAPURA HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
4. KASHIVISHWANATHA
S/O M.G. PALAKSHAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O SALUR VILAGE
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. S. JAYADEVA SHASTRY
S/O MAHABALA SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O S.S. ROAD
SHIKARIPURA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
2. S. NIRANJANA SHASTRY
S/O NAGABHUSHAN SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O DODDAPETE
SHIKARIPURA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
3. H.B. PALAKSHAPPA
S/O H.B. VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O DODDAPETE
SHIKARIPURA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.06.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.07.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/2011 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA ABD
ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
These matters are listed for admission along with the IAs.
2. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and
also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Along with the appeal in R.S.A.No.2211/2023,
I.A.No.1/2024 is also filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
seeking permission of this Court to consider the additional
evidence. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in
the said appeal filed objections to the said application.
4. These two second appeals are arising out of the
common judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants before this Court is that the Trial Court rejected the
suit only on the ground that adverse possession is not proved
and no pleading with regard to the part performance of the
contract. The counsel for the appellants filed the synopsis
stating that the relief is prayed for the declaration to declare
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour
of defendant No.3 in respective suits are null and void and not
binding on the rights, uninterrupted settled possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs and to declare that plaintiffs are the
owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of adverse
possession and also for the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the suit schedule property. The counsel further
contend that the suit schedule property measures 325x500 feet
and the same belongs to the Mahabala Sastry and during
lifetime of Mahabala Sastry and father of the plaintiffs, they
had entered into an agreement of sale dated 15.02.1962 and
possession was handed over on the date of sale agreement and
the entire sale consideration was also paid. But Mahabala
Sastry postponed the execution of the sale deed on one or the
other pretext. After the death of Mahabala Sastry, the legal
representative did not come forward to execute the sale deed.
Though the demand register stood in the name of Mahabala
Sastry, the possession and enjoyment column showed the
name of the father of the plaintiffs throughout from the date of
agreement of sale. The resolution was passed on 27.05.1988
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
mutating the name of the plaintiffs' father i.e., Palakshappa
Gowda and after the death of the father of plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit schedule
property and they were paying tax to the competent authority
and they are in continued the uninterrupted possession of the
suit schedule property for the last 4 decades.
5. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have fabricated and manipulated the
previous documents and succeeded to mutate their names in
the revenue records by creating the measurement as per their
convenience and obtained numbers as 170/1 and 170/2.
Thereafter, they created the sale deed in the year 2010. On the
strength of the sale deed, tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from
the suit schedule property and hence, the present suit is filed.
6. The counsel appearing for the appellants also
brought to notice of this Court to the written statement filed by
the defendants denying the averments of the plaint and also
disputed the execution of the unregistered agreement of sale.
It is also contended that the said agreement was not enforced
for a period of 49 years and plaintiffs have approached the
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
Court belatedly and contend that the suit is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that other defences were also taken with
regard to the stamp duty and also the non-joinder of necessary
parties and also contend that no resolution came to be passed
on 27.05.1988 to mutate the katha in the name of the father of
the plaintiffs. Even if so, contended that Panchayath had no
jurisdiction to pass such resolution.
7. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. The plaintiffs examined the witnesses as PW1 to
PW7 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the
other hand, defendant got examined 3 witnesses and got
marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D8. The execution of sale
deed in respect of property bearing Site No.170 measuring
325x500 feet came to be challenged by filing another suit in
O.S.No.11/2011 and both the suits are clubbed together and
common evidence came to be recorded and disposed of
together considering the common both oral and documentary
evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
8. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently
contend that documents at Ex.P3 to P6 show that the name of
Palakshappa Gowda i.e., the father of the plaintiffs is
forthcoming as Anubhavadar from 1968-69 till 1995-1996 and
also Ex.P7 clearly shows that father of the plaintiffs was in
possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly,
they have proceeded to pass a resolution and even evidence of
PW1 to PW7 establishes the possession of the plaintiffs. But the
Trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that there is no
pleading with regard to the part performance of the contract
and not proved the adverse possession.
9. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
DW1 has admitted that no documents are produced with regard
to the running of the rice mill. But their case is that they are
not aware of the transaction between the plaintiffs' father and
also the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 even though suit is
filed in O.S.No.229/2013 by the subsequent purchaser and the
same was withdrawn. Even Ex.P10 came to be marked
confronting the document wherein he has admitted that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. He has
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
denied the suggestions made with regard to the forcible
interference. So also, DW3 evidence is also similar that he was
pleaded ignorance with regard to the possession of the
plaintiffs. But DW3 admitted that demand register came to be
mutated in collusion and also admitted that Secretary has no
authority or power to mutate the demand register. These are
the evidence which clearly discloses that there is an admission
with regard to the possession of the property by the plaintiffs
and established delivery of possession by part performance of
contract.
10. The counsel in support of his arguments contend
that an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
before this Court and voluminous documents are produced
before this Court evidencing the fact that in terms of the sale
agreement, possession is delivered on the date of the sale
agreement itself and the same evidenced the part performance
of contract. The documents are certified copy of agreement of
sale dated 15.02.1962; certified copy of the tax demand
registers 8 in numbers; original death certificates; certified
copy of the registered Will dated 18.05.1989 executed by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
Mahabala Sastry. The counsel referring the document of Will
dated 18.05.1989 would contend that when the Will was
executed in the year 1989, the present suit schedule property
was not included in the Will executed by Mahabala Sastry and
that itself clearly discloses that property was sold in favour of
the plaintiffs' father, hence, not included the same in the Will.
The subsequent registered Will is dated 10.03.1992. The
counsel brought to notice of this Court to the date of death of
the Mahabala Sastry i.e., 12.03.1992. But document was
registered subsequent to the death of the testator i.e., on
13.03.1992. The counsel contend that it clearly discloses that
documents are created by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The counsel
also produced the copy of the mortgage deed dated 02.01.1948
which was executed by the Mahabala Sastry prior to this
transaction to show that he was not having the income in
respect of the property and also encumbrance certificates which
are produced before this Court i.e., Form No.6 - 3 in numbers
and certified copy of encumbrances in Form No.15 -2 in
numbers which disclose the name of the appellants' father. The
counsel also produced the tax demand registers from 1956-57
to 1967-68 and also from the year 1968-69 and all these
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
documents evidence the fact that subsequent to the execution
of sale agreement and handing over the possession, tax was
also paid. But the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
there is no any averment and material with regard to the part
performance of the sale agreement but the very approach of
the Trial Court is erroneous.
11. The counsel also vehemently contend that all the
revenue records stands in the name of the plaintiffs and the
same shows that they are in possession of the property and the
title is shown in respect of Mahabala Sastry. These are the
materials could not be placed before the Trial Court since the
same were misplaced and now, they found the same. These
documents are necessary to decide the germane issues
involved between the parties. Hence, the matter requires to be
remanded to consider the matter afresh.
12. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 has filed the statement of objections to the said
application stating that no explanation for non-production of
documents before the Trial Court. The counsel also vehemently
contend that those documents are not produced before the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
Court and the averments made in the affidavit does not
disclose the ground to entertain the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Hence, the appellants have not made
out any ground to produce any additional documents. The
counsel also would vehemently contend that on considering the
material on record, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
held that there was no evidence with regard to the part
performance and also the relief is sought for the declaration to
declare that he has perfected the title by adverse possession.
Hence, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not
committed any error in passing such a order.
13. Having heard the appellants' counsel and also the
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also
considering the material on record particularly, the reason
assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
and the documents which have been produced before this Court
filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which are in
voluminous, the points that would arise for the consideration of
this in second appeal are:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
1. Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court committed an error in dismissing the
suit of the plaintiffs inspite of documents,
particularly Ex.P3 to P6, which shows the
name of the plaintiffs' father forthcoming as
Anuabhavdar from 1968-69 till 1995-96?
2. Whether the appellants have made out
grounds to allow the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in view of voluminous
documents placed before this Court and
whether those documents are necessary for
consideration which clinches the germane
issues involved between the parties?
14. Having considered the voluminous documents which
have been placed before this Court along with the application
filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, those documents are relating
to the sale agreement and delivery of possession on the date of
sale agreement. It is unfortunate that the counsel who
conducted the case before the Trial Court, when there is a
pleading with regard to the sale agreement is concerned, the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
same is not placed before the Court. It is nothing but a travesty
of justice. The counsel who appears on behalf of the plaintiffs
when pleadings are made with regard to the sale agreement,
the same is not placed before the Court and the same is a suit
document wherein specifically pleaded that there was a sale
agreement of the year 1962 and it is reason best known to the
counsel who appeared before the Trial Court about concealing
the documents.
15. Apart from that the documents which have been
produced before the Court as additional evidence is from 1968-
69 onwards clearly disclose that in pursuance of the part
performance of sale agreement, possession was delivered and
all revenue entries in the demand register clearly discloses that
the plaintiffs' father is in cultivation of the suit schedule
property which establishes the delivery of possession and part
performance of contract. The additional documents which have
been produced before this Court are certified copy of the tax
demand register for year 1968-69, certified copy of the tax
demand register for the year 1974-75, certified copy of the tax
demand register of the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 and also
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
1981-82, 1989-90 and 1956-57 to 1967-68. All these
documents clearly disclose that the plaintiffs' father is in
possession of the suit property throughout establishing the part
performance and these documents requires to be produced and
germane issue arises to be considered considering these
documents.
16. Apart from that plaintiffs also relies upon the
document of the Will dated 18.05.1989. When the very
Mahabala Sastry executed the Will, excluded the present suit
schedule property in the Will. If there was no any sale
transaction, what prevented him in including this property in
the Will also to be considered. The counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs relies upon the Will dated 10.03.1992 and the same
was registered on 13.03.1992, but death certificate of
Mahabala Sastry discloses that he died on 12.03.1992 that is
document was registered on the next day wherein the suit
schedule property was included subsequent to the death of
Mahabala Sastry. Thus, it appears that the said document is
created for the purpose of the case. The counsel also relied
upon other documents before the Court and the same clinches
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
the germane issues involved between the parties and the same
has to be considered in the Trial Court. All these documents are
not placed before the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The
reasons are given by the counsel that some of the documents
are subsequently obtained and some of the documents were
found on searching the house. All these documents are
produced before the Court and having considered these
documents, if application is not allowed, it causes prejudice to
the rights of the plaintiffs. The issue involved between the
parties is with regard to the execution of sale agreement in the
year 1962 and delivery of the possession of the property and
tax paid receipts are also produced before the Court and the
documents disclose that taxes are paid in respect of the suit
schedule property from the date of sale transaction. Even the
sale agreement property i.e., suit schedule property was not
included in the Will of the year 1989 and only in the year 1992,
the Will was registered subsequent to the death of original
executant of the sale agreement shown in the document. All
these documents to be considered before the Trial Court to
decide the germane issues involved between the parties in the
matter. Hence, the appellants have made out the case to allow
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Hence, I
answer the second substantial question of law accordingly.
17. With regard to the other substantial question of law
is concerned, this Court is not touching upon merits of the case
in view of the production of additional documents before this
Court and the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh. Hence,
the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Trial Court in
view of production of these documents which are in voluminous
with regard to the germane issues involved between the parties
with regard to the pleadings and contentions taken by the
defendant in the written statement and also DW1 and DW2 who
have deposed before the Court are the subsequent purchasers
and sale was made in favour of defendant No.3 in both the
cases subsequent to the Will of the year 1992 wherein property
was included that is suit schedule property and in the earlier
Will not included the said property and the said question also to
be considered by the Trial Court. With these observations, the
appeals are disposed of and remanded to the Trial Court for
fresh consideration in the admission itself as voluminous
documents are produced.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
18. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
I. The second appeals are disposed of as observed.
II. I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in
R.S.A.No.2211/2023 is allowed.
III. The impugned judgments and decrees of the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside.
IV. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court to
consider the same afresh in view of allowing of the
application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
V. The Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to
the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence on the
documents which have been produced before this
Court and also directed to give an opportunity to the
respondents in both the suits to cross-examine the
witnesses.
VI. The Trial Court is also directed to give an opportunity
to both the plaintiffs and respondents to lead
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
additional evidence, if any, required for consideration
of the matter for fresh consideration.
VII. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial
Court on 12.01.2026 without expecting any notice.
VIII. The appellants are also directed to serve the copy of
this order on respondent No.3 in connected
R.S.A.No.2196/2023 to notify that let him to appear
before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 who did not
appear in the appeal without expecting any notice. If
respondent No.3 fails to appear before the Trial
Court, the Trial Court is directed to proceed placing
him as ex parte and conclude the proceedings within
a period of 6 months from 12.01.2026 as he is
evading the service.
IX. The appellants' counsel is directed to take back the
documents which have been produced along with
I.A.No.1/2024 and directed produce the same before
the Trial court while adducing the additional evidence
before the Trial Court.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
HC-KAR
X. The Trial Court is directed not to influence with the
observations made by this Court while disposing the
matter on merits.
XI. The parties are directed to maintain status quo till
the disposal of the suit.
XII. The respective counsels and also the parties are
directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the
matter in a time bound period.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
