Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayanna vs Sri H C Vishwanath on 21 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
RSA No. 1184 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1184 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYANNA
S/O A.N. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
AGRICULTURAL COOLIE
R/AT GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN-577 182.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H.C. VISHWANATH
S/O CHENNABASAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
by DEVIKA M R/AT MARUTHI NAGAR
Location: HIGH ARASIKERE TOWN
COURT OF HASSAN-573 103.
KARNATAKA
SRI. A.N.NINGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
2. SMT. KADURAMMA
W/O LATE A.N. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN-577 182.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
RSA No. 1184 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE. DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 16.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.98/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
counsel appearing for the appellant. This second appeal is filed
against concurrent finding of Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court.
2. The Trial Court having considered the claim made
by appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court, considered the
admission on the part of P.W.1 in paragraph No.23 and comes
to the conclusion that item No. 1 of the property originally
belongs to the Government and the same was granted in
favour of his father and that he had sold the property in favour
of defendant No.1 and his father is defendant No.2. Apart from
that, the Trial Court even taken note of admission i.e. the
evidence of P.W.2 which is also extracted in paragraph No.28
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
HC-KAR
that the oral evidence of P.W.2 also clearly discloses that item
No.1 of schedule property was granted in favour of defendant
No.2 by the Government. The Trial Court in paragraph No.30
discussed that item No.1 of the property is not an ancestral
property and the same is the self-acquired property of the
father. Hence, taken note that the same cannot be held as
ancestral property and also in paragraph No.34 taken note of
the sale deed, wherein it was recited that he had no wife and
children and also taken note of place of residence of both the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 and that they are residing in
distinct places. The Trial Court also taken note of Exs.P6 and P7
which clearly reveal that plaintiff pursued his education at
Government School, Shettihalli and he is the permanent
resident of Shettihalli, Gollarahatti Village, Kadoor Taluk and
both Exs.P6 and P7 indicate that he was not residing along with
defendant No.2 at any point of time and the said documentary
evidence itself supports the contention of defendant No.1 that
when the sale deed was executed, the defendant was not
aware about the residence of plaintiff and his mother. Hence,
the Trial Court granted the relief only in respect of item No.2 is
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
HC-KAR
concerned and declined to grant the relief in respect of item
No.1.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is
filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.20/2018 and the
First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds in the
appeal memo formulated the point whether the Trial Court has
properly appreciated the law, oral and documentary evidence
on record in rejecting the claim in respect of item No.1 and
whether it requires interference. Having reassessed the
material available on record, particularly taking note of the
admission on the part of P.W.1 which has been discussed in
paragraph No.20 that on perusal of cross-examination of
P.W.1, he categorically admitted that the property was acquired
by defendant No.2, but though claim that the same was
acquired from out of sale of certain ancestral properties which
belong to the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the same
is not pleaded either in the plaint or in the evidence in chief of
P.W.1 and comes to the conclusion that the same is an
improvement and also taken note that cross-examination of
P.W.1 further reveals that said witness has pleaded his inability
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
HC-KAR
to mention as to which of the so called ancestral properties
were sold by defendant No.2 to purchase the suit schedule
property. In paragraph No.21, the First Appellate Court also
taken note of the fact that the plaintiff was not residing along
with defendant No.2 and also taken note of evidence of
defendant No.1 that he was a bonafide purchaser of the
property and also observed that Exs.P6 and P7 show that
plaintiff is a permanent resident of Shettihalli, Gollarahatti
Village, Kadoor Taluk, while defendant No.2 was a resident of
Arsikere. This clearly shows that plaintiff did not reside with
defendant No.2. Hence, it is possible that purchaser i.e.,
defendant No.1 know about the existence of the plaintiff or he
was led to believe that defendant No.2 did not have anybody to
look after him and considering the same, the First Appellate
Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. Now, the counsel appearing to the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence
available on record. The counsel would contend that reasoning
given by both the Courts that they were not residing together
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
HC-KAR
and since, they were doing coolie work, they were staying
separately. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal frame
substantial question law whether the Court below is right in
believing that item No.1 of the schedule property was the self-
acquired property of defendant No.2, even though said
property was allotted to defendant No.2.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant also the reasoning given by the Trial Court, in order
to prove the factum that item No.1 of the property was his
ancestral property, nothing is placed on record. However,
P.W.1 categorically admitted that before grant, it was
government land and the same was granted in favour of his
father. When such grant was made in favour of his father it
becomes the self-acquired property of the father, who had sold
the property in favour of defendant No.1 by executing the sale
deed. The counsel appearing for the appellant would contend
that no share and half consideration was paid to the plaintiff.
When the plaintiff fails to produce any document to show that
said grant was made in favour of the family as contended,
Court also cannot presume the same, unless any material is
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
HC-KAR
placed on record and there must be cogent evidence before the
Court, in order to come to such a conclusion and the very
admission goes against P.W.1. Hence, the Trial Court rightly
comes to the conclusion that the property is a self-acquired
property and the same was sold by the father and even taken
note of factual aspects and admission on the part of P.W.1 that
both of them were residing separately and Exs.P6 and P7
indicates that even the plaintiff was not residing along with his
father at the time of executing the sale deed in favour of
defendant No.1 by defendant No.2. When such reasoning is
given by the Trial Court and admittedly, when the land was
granted in favour of the father and the same was sold during
his lifetime, question of granting any share in favour of plaintiff
also does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to come to
a conclusion that both the Courts have committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that the same is a self-acquired
property and First Appellate Court also discussed in detail with
regard to material on record and both the Courts have
considered the question of fact and question of law and no
ground is made out to admit the appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:27187
HC-KAR
6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
