Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumanthappa vs Sri Yogesh @ Yogeshappa on 30 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
RSA No. 93 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.93 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O BADAGI PEDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O DODDARANGAVVANHALLI VILLAGE,
ANAGODU HOBLI,
DAVANAGERE - 577514.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERESHA E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI YOGESH @ YOGESHAPPA,
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O ANJANEYA MILL EXTENSION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BADA CROSS,
KARNATAKA DAVANAGERE - 577001.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 23.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.658/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DAVANAGERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
RSA No. 93 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff filed a suit for the
relief of declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.40/2A1 measuring 1 acre situated at
Doddarangavvanahalli Village, Anagodu Hobli, Davanagere
District. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had
purchased 2 acres of land in suit schedule survey number
under registered sale deed dated 11.05.1987 from Smt.
Laxmamma and her son Halappa for consideration of
Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff has become the
absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule
property. In the year 1992, the plaintiff has sold 1 acre of the
land in the said property in favour of Smt. Hanumavva and
retained 1 acre of land and enjoying the suit schedule
property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is coming to
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
HC-KAR
Davanagere everyday for the purpose of work and he asked
the defendant to cultivate the suit schedule property on crop
share basis. Accordingly, the defendant was cultivating the
suit schedule property from 2005 and the plaintiff was giving
half share in the crop from the suit schedule property every
year. The defendant from the year 2005 to 2007 had given
the crop grown in the suit schedule property and in the year
2008, the defendant has not given any crop grown in the suit
schedule property to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff told
the defendant not to cultivate his land. For that the
defendant has abused the plaintiff in a filthy language and
tried to trespass upon the suit schedule property. On
12.09.2014, the plaintiff lodged the complaint against the
defendant regarding unlawfully trespassing on the suit
schedule property. The police have given the endorsement
that the dispute is in civil nature and hence he filed the suit
seeking the relief of declaration.
4. The defendant in pursuance of the suit summons
appeared and filed the written statement stating that the suit
itself is not maintainable and contended that the land
measuring 4 acres 1 gunta in Sy.No.40/2B was purchased by
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
HC-KAR
his propositus Hanumanthappa from its erstwhile owner
Revanasiddappa under the sale deed dated 15.08.1957 and
the sale deed is registered in the Sub-Registrar Office,
Davanagere on 17.08.1957 and on the same day, the
propositus Hanumanthappa became the absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of 4 acres 1 gunta of land in
Sy.No.40/2B. The propositus Hanumanthappa S/o Budagi
Peddappa died long back and after the death of propositus,
his sons Peddappa and Thippanna became the owners and in
possession of the said land. During the lifetime of Peddappa
and Thippanna, no division was taken place in respect of
Sy.No.40/2B. The defendant's father Peddappa had died 20
years back leaving behind the defendant as the only male
heir. After the death of Pedappa, the defendant alone is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and
paying the land revenue to the Government and the plaintiff
has no manner of title.
5. The Trial Court having considered the material
available on record and also the pleadings of the parties,
framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence.
The Trial Court in paragraph No.32 comes to the conclusion
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
HC-KAR
that the defendant has not disputed the registered sale deeds
Ex.Ps.1 and 6 and therefore the defendant has admitted that
his junior uncle has sold 2 acres of land in Sy.No.40/2A of
Doddarangavanahalli Village to Laxmamma under Ex.P.6 and
in turn Laxmamma and her son Halappa had sold 2 acres of
land to the plaintiff on 11.05.1987. The plaintiff has acquired
absolute title over 2 acres of land in Sy.No.40/2A and in the
year 1992, 1 acre was sold and remaining 1 acre vest with the
plaintiff. The Trial Court considering the material on record,
comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case
to declare him as the absolute owner and decreed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.67/2023. The
First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material
available on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff
has made out the case for having purchased the property and
also sold portion of the property to the extent of 1 acre and
retained 1 acre and hence confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant in this
appeal would contend that both the Courts have committed
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
HC-KAR
an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has
made out the case to declare him as the owner of the suit
schedule property. The learned counsel contend that both the
Courts failed to take note of the material on record and
mainly relies upon Exs.P.1 and 6 and the very approach of
both the Courts is erroneous. Hence, this Court has to frame
substantial question of law. The learned counsel contend that
the observation made by both the Courts that the defendant
has not disputed the registered sale deed Exs.P.1 and 6, is
erroneous.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and on perusal of the material available on record, the Trial
Court having considered the sale deed Exs.P.1 and 6, comes
to the conclusion that though the property to the extent of 2
acres was purchased by the plaintiff, he sold 1 acre and
retained 1 acre of land and when the interference was made,
complaint was given. Having considered the same, the Trial
Court rightly considered the material on record in respect of
the claim made by the plaintiff and also taken note of the sale
deed of the year 1987 and 1975 in paragraph No.10. In
paragraph No.19 taken note of the claim made by the
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
HC-KAR
defendant and non-production of the genealogical tree and in
paragraph No.20 observed that when a suggestion was made
to D.W.1 with regard to the sale of the property in favour of
Laxmamma and Laxmamma in turn sold the property, the
same was not categorically denied, except stating that he is
not aware of the same and in paragraph No.21 in detail
discussed the same. The First Appellate Court having re-
assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on
record, particularly in paragraph No.32 taken note of the
extent of the property sold in terms of Exs.P.1 and 6 and
when the sale was made to the extent of 2 acres, out of that,
1 acre was sold to Hanumavva and 1 acre of land was
retained. Hence, taking into note of the said fact into
consideration, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the
owner of the suit schedule property to the extent of 1 acre of
land.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that both the Courts have committed an error in
making an observation that two sale deeds Exs.P.1 and 6 are
clear with regard to the title of the plaintiff inspite of the
plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof regarding the
NC: 2025:KHC:23070
HC-KAR
document is concerned and the very observation made by the
Courts that Exs.P.1 and 6 is not disputed, is erroneous. The
said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that when a
suggestion was made to the defendant, he only denied that
he is not aware of the sale and not categorically denied that
there was no any sale deed in terms of Exs.P.1 and 6. When
such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the
Trial Court, particularly relying upon the document of Exs.P.1
and 6 and hence the appellant has not made out any ground
to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of
law.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
