Karnataka High Court
Sri V Rudrappa vs Sri V Nagaraja on 23 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21759
RSA No. 1526 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1526 OF 2024 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V. RUDRAPPA,
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1814, SHANTHINAGAR,
(VIJAYANAGAR),
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. V. NAGARAJA,
Digitally signed S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/AT NO.1814,
KARNATAKA SHANTHINAGAR, (VIJAYANAGAR),
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.09.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.133/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF
ITINERARY AT BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21759
RSA No. 1526 of 2024
HC-KAR
15.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.139/2008 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
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. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that both the Courts failed to consider the
documents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.11. The learned counsel
contend that Ex.D.11 is very clear that the building which was
given to the appellant/defendant is 20 x 25 feet on the
northern portion of the property and above the same, first
floor entire building was allotted in favour of the appellant.
Both the Courts failed to take note of that though 20 x 25 feet
was given in respect of ground floor, but entire building which
is in existence on the first floor was given to the appellant.
The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court
the recitals of Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.11, under which he claims
right in respect of the property. The learned counsel contend
NC: 2025:KHC:21759
HC-KAR
that both the Courts have committed an error in directing the
appellant to handover the possession of the premises to the
respondent/plaintiff in coming to the conclusion that he was
under permissive possession and the very observation is
erroneous and directing to pay the damages of Rs.500/- per
month from the date of suit till handing over the vacant
possession of the suit property is also not correct.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
would contend that the Court has to take note of the
documents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.11. It is not in dispute that
both the documents are executed by the mother of the
appellant and the respondent. Ex.P.1 gift deed is in favour of
the plaintiff and the same was executed in 2007. The learned
counsel contend that Ex.D.11 registered gift deed was
executed in the year 2003. The learned counsel brought to
the notice of this Court the recitals made in Ex.D.11 and the
same is specific that the gift deed was executed in respect of
20 x 25 feet of the southern portion of the property and the
recitals is clear with regard to the very same measurement
the building which was in the first floor was given to the
appellant and not the entire extent of the building, which is in
NC: 2025:KHC:21759
HC-KAR
existence on the first floor as contended by the appellant.
The learned counsel contend that both the Courts have taken
note of the same. The learned counsel brought to the notice
of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.17 of the
Trial Court judgment as well as the discussion made in
paragraph No.21 of the Appellate Court. The learned counsel
referring these two paragraphs would contend that both the
Courts have not committed any error and given the reasoning
and also given the fact finding in respect of the very claim
made by the appellant and hence the question of framing any
substantial question of law does not arise.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not in dispute
that the entire property belongs to the mother of the
appellant and the respondent and the same is emerged during
the course of evidence also. It is important to note that it is
the case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court that
permissive possession was given in respect of portion of first
floor of the premises, which was allotted in favour of the
plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent also brought
to the notice of this Court the averments made in the written
NC: 2025:KHC:21759
HC-KAR
statement, particularly in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, wherein
specific pleading was made by the appellant that the extent of
property which was gifted to him was 20 x 25 feet both in the
ground floor and first floor with all rights attached to it. In
paragraph No.11, it is also pleaded with regard to the
execution of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff to an
extent of east to west 20 feet and north to south 15 feet. The
suggestion made to P.W.1 is also brought to the notice of this
Court as well as the admission given by the appellant that his
claim is title in respect of 20 x 25 feet in respect of both
ground floor and first floor. When the pleading is very clear
and admission is also very clear, the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the entire first floor was
given cannot be accepted. The Court has to look into the
document of Ex.D.11, under which the appellant claims,
wherein it is specifically mentioned as 20 x 25 feet in ground
floor as well as in first floor. Both the Courts have taken note
of the documentary evidence available on record, particularly
Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.11 and also the evidence available on record.
5. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the respondent that fact finding was given by both the Courts
NC: 2025:KHC:21759
HC-KAR
considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record and the very contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that entire first floor building was given to the
appellant cannot be accepted and both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record not supports the claim of the
appellant. The Trial Court in paragraph No.17 discussed with
regard to the claim made by the appellant herein and the
Appellate Court in paragraph No.21 also discussed in detail
and considering the material available on record, particularly
taken note of the recitals made in Ex.P.1 i.e., sakala kattada
that means, the building in respect of ground floor and first
floor in respect of the portion of the property is allotted in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The recitals in Ex.D.11 is
very clear that 20 x 25 feet in respect of ground and first floor
building, the gift was made in favour of the appellant. Hence,
I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in
considering the material available on record and the finding
also given on both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record and no dispute to that aspect.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the respondent cannot claim any right in respect
NC: 2025:KHC:21759
HC-KAR
of northern staircase. The question of claiming northern
staircase from the respondent/plaintiff does not arise, since
the northern portion was allotted in favour of the appellant
and the southern portion of the property 15 x 20 feet is the
subject matter of this appeal and hence the question of
clarifying the same also does not arise since the plaintiff is
also not claiming the same and only the appellant has to
handover the possession as directed by the Trial Court.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
