Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjuna vs Channegowda on 10 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
RSA No. 1295 of 2007
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2007 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUNA,
S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT SEEGE VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK - 573 219.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT H R ANITHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANNEGOWDA,
S/O LATE BHANGI AJJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT SEEGE VILLAGE,
SALAGAME HOBLI,
Digitally HASSAN TALUK - 573 219.
signed by
PRAMILA G V 2. VEEREGOWDA,
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA,
Location:
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF SEEGE VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI,
KARNATAKA HASSAN TALUK - 573 219.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.2.2007 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.169/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE & PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III,
HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
RSA No. 1295 of 2007
HC-KAR
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.4.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.
375/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) &
JMFC II COURT, HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is arising from concurrent finding
in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff
sought declaration of title in respect of 1 acre of land in
Sy.No.48 (old No.28/10). The property is located in
Devihalli Village, Salagame Hobli at Hassan Taluk. Plaintiff
claims to have purchased the property under registered
sale deed dated 07.03.1998 from one Nanjappa. The
plaintiff's contention is that Nanjappa, 2nd defendant -
Veeregowda and six others purchased Sy.No.28/10 from
Mahabaleshwar. It is further stated that Mahabaleshwar
acquired right over the property under registered sale
deed dated 23.12.1970 executed by Basavarajuu. Plaintiff
claims that Basavaraju executed the sale deed for the
entire extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.28/10.
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
2. Defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the
property measuring 28 guntas in Sy.No.28/10 from
Basavaraju. Defendant No.1 according to the plaintiff
started interfering with the plaintiff's possession and
denied the title of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant denied
title of the plaintiff, as such, the suit is filed seeking relief
of declaration of title and injunction.
3. Both the defendants contested the suit by filing
separate written statements. Defendant No.2 contested
the suit contending that on 23.12.1970, the property in
Sy.No.28/10 was sold by Basavaraju in favour of
Mahabaleshwar and Mahabaleshwar in turn sold 1 acre 7
guntas on 20.07.1982 to the plaintiff, 2nd defendant and
six others. Defendant No.2 contends that there was no
partition among those 8 persons and 2nd defendant is in
possession of the property over which the plaintiff is
claiming declaration of title.
4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit based on
registered sale deed dated 05.12.1998.
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
5. After analysing the evidence on record, Trial
Court concluded that there is discrepancy in the extent of
one of the survey numbers. The Trial Court has noticed
that when the property was sold in the year 1970, the
extent was only 2 acres however, when the property was
sold in the year 1982, additional 28 guntas is included in
the sale deed and according to the Trial Court, the
discrepancy or inclusion of larger extent of 28 guntas is
not properly explained in the plaint or evidence.
6. The Trial Court also noticed that first defendant
who claims to have purchased the property under
registered sale deed dated 05.12.1998 does not acquire
any title over the property on the premise that his vendor
Basavaraju had already sold entire 2 acres of land in
Sy.No.28/10 under registered sale deed dated
23.12.1970. Thus, the Trial Court has declined to grant
the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.
7. The Trial Court also held that 1st defendant does
not have any right over the property and consequently,
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
the suit is dismissed. No finding is given in favour of 2 nd
defendant insofar as his claim relating to his possession
over the suit land.
8. The plaintiff's appeal is also dismissed by the
First Appellate Court as the First Appellate Court concurred
with the findings of the Trial Court.
9. This plaintiff's second appeal was admitted on
08.06.2007 to answer the following substantial question of
law:
"Whether the Courts below were justified
in holding that the discrepancy appearing
in ex.P4 and ex.P5 negatives the claim of
the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property?"
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant would
contend that after having recorded a finding that 1st
defendant has no title over the property, the Trial Court
ought to have granted declaration of title in favour of the
plaintiff as plaintiff's sale deed dated 07.03.1998 is duly
established. It is her further contention that the suit of
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
the plaintiff is based on registered sale deed dated
07.03.1998, the vendor has not disputed the plaintiff's
claim and there is no dispute relating to the execution of
the sale deed, as such declaration ought to have been
granted. It is her submission that the First Appellate
Court also committed a similar mistake in not appreciating
the evidence on record.
11. Learned counsel for 1st respondent would
contend that this defence is based on a registered sale
deed dated 05.12.1998 and same should have been
accepted by the Trial Court and vendor Basavaraju has not
disputed this sale deed and the revenue records reflected
28 guntas as against the name of Basavaraju in 1998, and
Basavaraju has sold the same in favour of second
defendant.
12. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the bar and perused the records.
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
13. From the records placed before the Court, it is
evident that in the year 1970, 2 acres of land is sold by
Basavaraju. Referring to the boundaries in the sale deed
dated 23.12.1970, the Trial Court has concluded that
entire 2 acres in Sy.No.28/10 is sold and no more land
was available in the said survey number. This finding is
based on the description in the sale deed. This may or
may not be correct. Whether the extent of land in
Sy.No.28/10 is 2 acres or 2 acres 28 guntas have to be
decided with reference to the revenue records prior to
1970. Unfortunately, this exercise has not been carried
out. In case, the property bearing Sy.No.28/10 measured
2 acres 28 guntas prior to 1970, then defendant No.1 will
also acquire title over 28 guntas as Basavaraju has sold
only 2 acres. If the extent is only 2 acres, then 1 st
defendant will not acquire title over 28 guntas which he
claims to have purchased under sale deed dated
05.12.1998.
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
14. It is also quite possible that the extent might
have been 2 Acres 28 guntas and entire 2 Acres and 28
guntas might have been sold in 1970 by wrongly
describing the extent as 2 acres.
15. It is not in dispute that plaintiff's vendor -
Nanjappa, 2nd defendant and six others purchased the
property under registered sale deed dated 20.07.1982.
The said sale transaction is not only in respect of suit
property but also in respect of some other survey
numbers.
16. The Trial Court has not accepted the alleged
partition among 8 purchasers. Defendant No.2 one among
the 8 purchasers has also contended that alleged partition
has not taken place.
17. This being the position, the Trial Court is
justified in declining the relief of declaration of title in
favour of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's remedy is
not completely lost. Plaintiff still has the opportunity to
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
establish his case relating to 1 acre of land or any lesser
extent of land which was available at the time of partition.
Since the partition is not established, the plaintiff can still
file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and
partition.
18. Defendant No.1 is also entitled to file an
appropriate suit if the land owned by Basavaraju was 2
Acres 28 guntas and Basavaraju has sold only 2 Acres in
1970.
19. Under these circumstances, the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court are to be set-aside.
20. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated
07.04.2005 on the file of Principal Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Hassan in
O.S.No.375/1999 are set-aside.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
(iii) The judgment and decree dated
22.02.2007 on the file of Additional Civil
Judge, Fast Track -III, Hassan in
R.A.No.169/2006 are set-aside.
(iv) The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with the
liberty to file an appropriate comprehensive
suit to establish the claim.
(v) In case, if any such suit is filed, the Trial
Court shall decide the suit keeping in mind
the observations made in this judgment.
(vi) It is also made clear that in case the suit is
filed, all 8 purchasers of the property under
the sale deed dated 20.07.1982 or anyone
claiming under them shall be impleaded as
party.
(vii) If any person (who is not a party to the
suit) among the 8 purchasers under the
sale deed dated 20.07.1982 takes a stand
that the partition has already taken place
said contention has to be considered
independently without reference to any
observation in this judgment.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19739
HC-KAR
(viii) In case defendant No.1 files a suit in
respect of 28 guntas which he claims to
have purchased, the Court is required to
consider whether Basavaraju the original
owner possessed more than 2 acres prior to
sale in 1970.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN
