[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthreddy S/O Yarrappa vs M Dhodda Anjaneya S/O Thimmanna on 18 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
RSA No. 5018 of 2009
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5018 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMANTHREDDY S/O. YARAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
1A. SRI. M. THIMMAREDDY
S/O. SRI. HANUMANTH REDDY,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
1B. SRI. M. DIVAKAR REDDY
S/O. SRI. HANUMANTH REDDY,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
1C. SRI. GOPALREDDY
S/O. SRI. HANUMANTH REDDY,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
signed by ALL ARE R/O. ALUR VILLAGE,
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
KHANA HOSALLI HOBLI,
2025.12.19
16:07:50
+0530
TQ. KUDLIG, DIST. BALLARI.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.06.2015 AND
04.06.2024)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M. DHODDA ANJANEYA
S/O. THIMMANNA,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
RSA No. 5018 of 2009
HC-KAR
R/O. ALURU VILLAGE, TQ. KUDLIG,
DIST. BELLARY.
2. SANNA THIMMANNA ALIAS CHINNTAPPA
S/O. LATE SANNA THIMMAPPA ALIAS YARRAPPA,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. ALURU IN KUDLIGI TALUK,
DIST. BELLARY.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.
2A. SMT. KISTAMMA
D/O. LATE SANNA TIMMANNA,
W/O. GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ALURU VILLAGE,
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. BELLARY.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.02.2014)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2A-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) COURT
KUDLIGI IN O.S.NO.278/1997 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN O.S.NO.278/1997 DATED
26.03.2005 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN
R.A.NO.17/2005 AND R.A.NO. 25/2006 DATED 03.11.2008 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) COURT, KUDLIGI. AND PASS
APPROPRIATE ORDERS BY DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF
IN O.S.NO.278/1997 BY CONFIRMING THE POSSESSION AND
ENJOYMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1'S PORTION OF SUIT RICK YARD IN
SURVEY NUMBER 334-A AND AWARD COST OF THE SUIT AND ETC.,
THIS RSA APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
24.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
RSA No. 5018 of 2009
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
This second appeal is filed by defendant No.1 who suffered
the decree of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
in O.S.No.278/1997 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division
and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kudligi respectively.
2. The factual matrix that is necessary for the purpose
of this appeal is as below:
a) The suit schedule property happens to be in the
rickyard situated at Alur Village in Kudligi Taluk, in
Sy.No.334/A, measuring 54 cents, bounded by
road on the East and the properties of others on
the remaining three sides.
b) The plaintiff Dodda Anjaneya contended that he is
the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property
and he derived the title to the said property
through a registered Will dated 13.01.1970
executed by one Gangamma wife of Giddappa. He
contended that she was in possession and
enjoyment of the rickyard and defendant No.1 has
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
no right, title or interest in the same in whatsoever
manner.
c) While the plaintiff was working in the rickyard on
08.10.1987, defendant No.1 came and obstructed
the possession of the plaintiff and tried to take a
foundation. The defendant also denied the title of
plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to
file this suit for declaration of his title and for
consequential relief of injunction.
3. On service of summons, defendant No.1 appeared
through his learned counsel and filed a written statement.
a) The defendant contended that the suit schedule
property is not the exclusive property of the
plaintiff. He contended that he happens to be the
son of one Yerrappa. The said Yerrappa had a
brother by name Dodda Thimmanna. He had only a
son by name Giddappa and his wife is Gangamma.
It is contended that the said Yerrappa and Dodda
Thimmanna had divided their properties during
their lifetime long back under a oral partition and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
the plaint schedule property was divided into two
equal shares and the Western portion measuring
29.5 cents had fallen to the share of Dodda
Thimmanna and the remaining half on the Eastern
side had fallen to the share of Yerrappa. It is
contended that the said Gangamma, who allegedly
executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff could only
bequeath 29.5 cents under the Will.
b) It was further contended that Yerrappa had three
sons i.e. Defendant Nos.1, Dodda Thimmanna and
Sanna Thimmanna. The rickyard measuring 29.5
cents which was allotted to Yerrappa was divided
between defendant No.1 and Sanna Thimmanna,
(who later is impleaded as defendant No.2 in the
suit) and each of them got 14.75 cents. The
Eastern half was belonging to defendant No.1 and
the Western part, which adjoins the rickyard
bequeathed by Gangamma to plaintiff was
belonging to defendant No.2. Therefore, it was
contended that the suit schedule property contains
three portions measuring 14.75 cents, belonging to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
the defendant No.1, 14.75 cents belonging to
defendant No.2 and 29.5 cents belonging to the
plaintiff.
c) He further contended that the property fallen to
the share of the defendant was mortgaged under a
registered mortgage deed dated 26.04.1967 in
favour of one Gopalareddy. At the time of the
mortgage, the plaintiff had consented for the same
by a consent agreement dated 05.08.1984.
Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff is not in
exclusive possession of the entire 54 cents of the
suit schedule property and therefore, the suit is
not maintainable.
d) It is contended that defendant No.1 has dug a pit
for laying foundation with an intention to construct
a cattle shed which was objected by the plaintiff.
Hence, defendant No.1 contended that the suit is
misconceived and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
4. Defendant No.2 who was impleaded during pendency
of the suit has filed his written statement. He admitted that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said rickyard and he had
derived the title from Gangamma under the Will dated
13.01.1970. It is his contention that the plaint schedule property
had fallen to the share of Dodda Thimmanna (who is brother of
Yerrappa) and the entire property devolved upon Giddappa and
then to Gangamma, who executed a Will in favour of the
plaintiff. He contends that there was a partition between
defendant No.1 and his uncle Dodda Thimmanna in the year
1955 and therefore, defendant No.1 does not have any right,
title or interest in the suit schedule property.
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the following
issues were framed by the Trial Court.
"ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the deceased
Gangamma W/o Giddappa had a valid title over
the suit schedule property at the time of execution
of will in favour of plaintiff on 13.1.1970 ?
2. If so, whether plaintiff proves that he is the
absolute property by virtue of the registered will
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
executed by deceased Gangamma dated
13.1.1970 as contended?
3. If so, whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful
possession of suit schedule property as
contended?
4. Whether plaintiff proves the illegal interference in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule property by defendant?
5. What order or decree?"
6. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1, and PW.2 and
PW.3 were examined on his behalf. Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked
in evidence. The defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and
the seven witnesses were examined as DW.2 to DW.8 and
Exs.D.1 to D.11 were marked on behalf of the defendants.
7. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, The
Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and
issue No.3 in the negative and holding that the issue No.4 does
not survive for consideration, it decreed the suit in part. The Trial
Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration of
title to the suit schedule property. But held that permanent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
injunction against the defendant cannot be granted and such
prayer was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff as well as the
defendant approached the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.25/2006 and R.A.No.17/2005 respectively. The First
Appellate Court after hearing both the sides dismissed the appeal
(R.A.No.17/2005) filed by defendant No.1 and allowed the
appeal (R.A.No.25/2006) filed by the plaintiff and granted the
injunction also. In effect, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in
its entirety by the First Appellate Court.
9. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 is before this Court
in second appeal. While admitting the appeal, this Court has
framed for following the substantial questions of law as below.
i) Whether the trial Court as well as the Lower
Appellate Court have committed an error in
appreciating the evidence while considering the
validity or otherwise of the WILL dated 13.10.1970
under which the plaintiff had set up right to the
suit schedule property.
ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed
an error in appreciating the evidence while
reversing the finding rendered by the trial Court
on Issue No.3."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
have decreed the suit in its entirety though the evidence on
record showed that the plaintiff was entitled for only 29.5 cents
in the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendants
had set up the contention that the suit schedule property which
totally measures about 54 cents, is a rickyard and it was owned
by one Yerrappa alias Sanna Thimmappa and his brother Dodda
Thimmappa and there was a partition between them resulting in
the suit schedule property being divided into two halves. He
submits that Dodda Thimmappa had a son by name Giddappa
and he had no issues and as such after his death, his wife
Gangamma became the absolute owner of the property. She
executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff, he being the adopted
son of Gangamma. Therefore, the plaintiff was in possession of
29.5 cents in the suit schedule property. The remaining 29.5
cents in the suit schedule property had fallen to the share of
Yerrappa, which was divided among defendant No.1 and his
brother Sanna Thimmanna equally. The defendant No.1 had
mortgaged the rickyard measuring 14.75 cents to one Gopal
Reddy on 26.04.1967 under a registered mortgage deed and as
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
such, the possession of defendant No.1 in respect of 14.75 cents
is borne out of the records. Therefore, he contends that the
validity of the Will was only in respect of 29.5 cents and not
more. He also submits that the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence let in by the
defendants in this regard and have decreed the suit in its
entirety covering 59 cents which comprises the suit schedule
property. Therefore, he submits that the execution of the Will
having not been questioned by the defendants, its validity
applies only in respect of the portion held by Giddappa and his
wife Gangamma. He points out that there is a document in the
form of an agreement produced by the defendants at Ex.D.2 and
this document has not been properly appreciated by the Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court. By virtue of this
agreement, the husband of Gangamma i.e., Giddappa had
consented for the partition of 29.5 cents among defendant No.1
and his brother Sanna Thimmanna i.e., defendant No.2. This
aspect was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs contends that there is no material on record to show
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
that the father of defendant No.1 and 2/Yerrappa also had any
share in the suit schedule property. Learned counsel appearing
for the plaintiffs submits that the partition between Yerrappa and
Dodda Thimmanna has not been established by the defendants
conclusively. It is submitted that the finding of the facts by the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court having been finally
decided in favour of the plaintiffs, there is no need for
interference in the same. He also submits that the division of
29.5 cents among defendant No.1 and his brother Sanna
Thimmanna has not been established and therefore, there is
nothing on record to show that the defendants own 29.5 cents in
the suit schedule property. Therefore, he has sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
12. The first aspect that is to be considered by this Court
is in respect of the validity or otherwise of the Will. It is pertinent
to note that the plaintiffs have produced the said Will executed
by Gangamma at Ex.P.1. This document is a registered Will. The
Ex.P.1 shows that it was executed on 13.01.1970 and the Will
describes the said Gangamma to be the wife of Moolemane
Thimayya alias Giddappa. It also avers that she had executed
another Will earlier in the year 1961 and by virtue of Ex.P.1, the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
earlier Will is cancelled by her. It mentions that she is
bequeathing her properties in favour of the plaintiff Anjineya
Reddy. It also mentions that he is her adopted son. The Will
mentions that she has various properties and the suit schedule
property is described as a Sy.No.334A measuring 59 cents with
the specified boundaries. The said Will does not mention
anything about the manner in which the said property was
acquired by her.
13. Defendant No.1 in his written statement contends
that he and his brother defendant No.2 were the sons of one
Yerappa alias Sanna Thimmappa and the said Sanna Thimmappa
had a brother by name Dodda Thimmappa. There was partition
between Yerappa and Dodda Thimmappa whereby Dodda
Thimmappa was allotted 29.5 cents in the suit schedule
property. It was the contention of defendant No.1 that son of
Dodda Thimmappa is Giddappa and his wife is Gangamma.
Therefore, the defendants contend that Giddappa and
Gangamma were never the owners in possession of the entire 59
cents in Sy.No.334A. Insofar as execution of the Will by
Gangamma is concerned, there is no much resistance by
defendant No.1. It is his contention that Gangamma had no
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
absolute right, title or interest in the suit schedule property, but
her rights were limited to 29.5 cents only. The written statement
though denying the Will, the contention set up by defendant
No.1 is that Gangamma was owning to the extent of 29.5 cents
only.
14. Therefore, the execution of the Will by Gangamma is
not in dispute, as has been rightly considered by the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court.
15. The validity of the Will insofar as it relates to the
29.5 cents owned by defendant Nos.1 and 2 is denied by them
contending that such portion of the suit schedule property was in
the possession of defendant Nos.1 and 2 since long time.
Therefore, it is only the said 29.5 cents of the rickyard which is
the subject matter of the present suit.
16. It may be noted that the Will executed by
Gangamma in favour of the plaintiff showed that she had to
bequeath the entire rickyard measuring 59 cents. There cannot
be any doubt that the Will executed by Gangamma in favour of
the plaintiff at Ex.P.1, categorically mentioned that the rickyard
measuring 59 cents has been bequeathed to the plaintiff. So
also, the other records produced by the plaintiff establish that it
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
was Gangamma in whose name the rickyard measuring 59 cents
was standing for long time. It is the contention of defendant
No.1 that there was a partition between Yerrappa and Dodda
Thimmappa equally and therefore, Giddappa continued to
possess only 29.5 cents, which descended upon Gangamma.
17. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment notices
that though there is some discrepancy in regard to the
relationship between the Dodda Thimmappa and his brother
Yerappa and that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of
Yerrappa, the documentary evidence show that Yerrappa and
Dodda Thimmappa are the brothers and defendant No.1 and 2
represent the branch of Yerrappa. This concurrent finding by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is based on the
documents which are available on record. It may be noted that
the fact which has been decided by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court concurrently and which is not in dispute need not
be again entered into by this Court.
18. This leads us to the question whether plaintiff's claim
over 59 cents is sustainable or it would sustain only in respect of
29.5 cents. The plaintiff heavily relies upon the revenue records
pertaining to the rickyard measuring to 59 cents. None of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
documents show that there was any partition between Yerrappa
and Dodda Thimmappa concerning the suit rickyard. All along, it
is the name of Giddappa and Gangamma which is reflected in the
records. The document which is relied upon by the defendants is
a questioned document i.e., Ex.I.1. During deposition of
defendant No.2 (DW.8) it was marked, subject to objection as
Ex.I.1. In paragraph No.15 of the judgment of the Trial Court, it
observes that it was not produced as required under law and
therefore, it could not have been marked during the cross-
examination of defendant No.2 as a witness for defendant No.1.
It also observes in paragraph No.17 that even if Ex.I.1 is looked
into for its intrinsic value, it mentions that the rickyard has to be
divided among the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 equally,
which is against the pleadings of the defendants and as such, it
is of no help to the defendants.
19. The Trial Court further observes that, the only
document which refers to 29.5 cents belonging to the plaintiff is
Ex.D.2. The Ex.D.2 is a consent agreement alleged to have been
executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The
Ex.D.2 is an unregistered document, which was marked during
cross-examination of PW.1. It is pertinent to note that PW.1
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
though did not categorically admit Ex.D.2, he had stated that the
signature on Ex.D.2 looks like his signature. Even the plaint was
also marked for a reference as Ex.D.3. The denial of the
signature on Ex.D.2 by the plaintiff has not been taken to a
logical end. The admission of PW.1 regarding Ex.D.2 may be
found in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of his deposition. It is pertinent
to note that Ex.D.2 states that father of Giddappa i.e., Dodda
Thimmappa and Yerrappa had partitioned the property and the
records reveal that the entire 59 cents stands in the name of
Giddappa and it has devolved upon the plaintiff. But however,
29.5 cents was enjoyed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 had divided it among themselves each enjoying
14.75 cents. The plaintiff had admitted such possession of the
defendants to the extent of 29.5 cents. It is worth to note that
apart from defendant Nos.1 and 2, two other witnesses had also
signed the said document. It is pertinent to note that DW.7 is T.
K. Krishna Reddy and he claims himself to be the power of
attorney holder of defendant No.2. The signatory to Ex.D.2 is
one M. Krishna Reddy and he has not been examined. Therefore,
the testimony of DW.7 was not at all pertaining to the Ex.D.2,
which aspect the Trial Court did not observe. The Trial Court has
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
rejected this document on the ground that DW.7 has not offered
himself for cross-examination.
20. It is pertinent to note when DW.1 had admitted his
signature on Ex.D.2, it was unnecessary for a witness to Ex.D.2
to be examined. Therefore, the testimony of DW.7 was not
necessary.
21. Apart from Ex.D.2, the defendants rely on the
mortgage deed of about 15 cents in favour of one Gopal Reddy,
which is at the Ex.D.8. Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of the
mortgage deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Gopal
Reddy. Though the redemption deed pertaining to this mortgage
is not available, the fact remains that 15 cents in Sy.No.334A
was mortgage in favour of Gopal Reddy. There is no reason as to
why this mortgage deed should not be believed.
22. The above documentary evidence shows that Exs.D.2
and D.8 were not properly appreciated by Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court. These two documents were discarded
on the ground that Ex.D.2 is not proved by examining a witness
even though PW.1 has admitted his signature on Ex.D.2;
redemption deed was not produced in respect of the mortgage
under Ex.D.8. Therefore, when these two documents
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
categorically stated that defendant No.1 is in possession and
enjoyment of 14.75 cents of the suit schedule property, it cannot
be held that the plaintiff was in possession of the entire 59 cents.
There is no doubt that the property has been standing in the
name of Giddappa and then in the name of Gangamma for quite
long time. But Exs.D2 and D.8 show that the possession was not
with the plaintiff. Though it is a settled principle of law that the
possession follows the title. In the case on hand, Exs.D.2 and
D.8 interrupt such flow of possession with the title. This aspect
was not properly considered by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court. It is to be noted that except the Ex.D.2, there is
nothing on record to show that there was a partition between
Yerrappa and Dodda Thimmappa.
23. The resettlement register extract which is at Ex.P.12,
pertains to the entire 59 cents of the suit schedule property and
it is in the name of Giddappa. This document also does not come
to the aid of the defendants to show that they were holding title
and that there was a partition. However, the admission contained
in Ex.D.2 and its acting upon by way of a mortgage by defendant
No.1 cannot be brushed aside to hold that the entire property
has flown to the plaintiff. Therefore, the validity of Will dated
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
13.10.1970 by Gangamma in favour of the plaintiff would only
restrict itself to 29.5 cents. Evidently, Ex.D.2 is dated
05.08.1984 and Ex.D.8 is dated 26.04.1967. It is relevant to
note that if there was no such a share in favour of defendant
No.1 in the year 1967, Ex.D.8 could not have been executed by
him to mortgage about 15 cents of the rickyard. Therefore, the
evidence contained in Exs.D.2 and D.8 clearly shows that the
effect of Ex.D.8 was reiterated by the plaintiff in Ex.D.2. This
aspect was not considered by both the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court.
24. It may be noted that the Trial Court had not granted
any injunction to the plaintiff. In paragraph No.29 of the
Judgment, it observes as below:
"29. The defendant No.2 who got himself examined as
DW.8 has also admitted that there are three
rickyards in the suit property. He has denied that
the middle rickyard in the suit property is in his
possession. He has admitted that the bigger
rickyard is in the possession of the plaintiff.
Further, PW.3 Obappa in para-4 of his cross-
examination has stated that the plaintiff and
Sanna Thimmanna and also first defendant own
bullocks and they are agriculturists and they store
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
crops in the rickyards. As already pointed out he
has admitted that the rickyard on the east of the
rickyard of the first defendant, is in the possession
of Sanna Thimmanna and Sanna Thimmanna has
haystack and manure pit in the said rickyard and
the first defendant has the rickyard on the eastern
side of the road. He has further admitted that
except these rickyards the defendant and Sanna
Thimmanna have no other rickyard in their village.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 also establishes
that the two smaller rickyards are in the
possession of defendant No.1 and 2 respectively.
Considering the above evidence on record and the
physical features of the property it cannot be held
that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the
suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to
prove that he is in exclusive possession of the suit
rickyard. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff has failed
to prove that he is in exclusive possession of the
suit rickyard. Therefore, Issue No.3 is answered in
the negative."
25. This conclusion by the Trial Court is based on the
available evidence.
26. The First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment
holds that the possession of the plaintiff is also established and
therefore, the refusal by the Trial Court to grant the injunction is
not sustainable. In other words, it decrees the suit of the plaintiff
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
in entirety. Obviously, the First Appellate Court has failed to
draw the inferences from Exs.D.2 and D.8.
27. From the above discussion, concerning the
documents produced by the plaintiff and the documents
produced by the defendants, particularly Exs.D.2 and D.8, it is
evident that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of 29.5
cents in the suit schedule property on the Western side and the
remaining property is enjoyed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 with an
amicable partition among them. Thus, the appreciation of the
evidence by the First Appellate Court was also not proper and it
was not justified in reversing the finding rendered by the Trial
Court on issue No.3. In the result, the first substantial question
of law is answered to the effect that the validity of the Will
pertains to only 29.5 cents in suit schedule property and the
second substantial question of law is answered in the
affirmative holding that the First Appellate Court erred in
appreciating the evidence concerning issue No.3.
28. The outcome of the above discussion would be that
the plaintiff is entitled for the relief only in respect of 29.5 cents.
Hence, the following:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18644
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment of the First Appellate
Court is set aside.
iii) The judgment of the Trial Court is modified.
iv) It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner of 29.5 cents of the suit schedule
property situated on the Western side.
v) The Defendants are restrained from interfering
with the possession of the plaintiff to the
extent of 29.5 cents in any manner.
vi) In particular circumstances, the costs made
easy.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SSP
CT:PA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52
