Karnataka High Court
Smt. Laxmamma vs Sri. Govindappa on 11 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
RSA No. 419 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.419 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAXMAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
1. SRI SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
2. SRI CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
SINGANAHALLI, HOSSUR HOBLI
Digitally signed GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
by DEVIKA M CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI RUDRAIAH M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI GOVINDAPPA
S/O OBALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOSSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561208
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
RSA No. 419 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.16/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., GOWRIBIDANUR AND ETC.
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 appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction is that the suit schedule property
was acquired vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.1978
and the defendants without having any right, title or
possession over the suit schedule property made an
attempt to interfere with peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the said property. Hence,
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
HC-KAR
filed the suit. The defendants appeared and filed the
written statement contending that the averments made in
the plaint is not correct and apart from that they claimed
that they are in possession of the suit property and they
are enjoying the same as the legal successors of one A K
Chikkakadirappa who is the father-in-law of defendant
No.1 and the grandfather of other defendants. That said
A.K. Chikkakadirappa's first son by name Naraseeyappa
has been in peaceful possession of one acre of land and
that the defendants have been in peaceful possession of 1
acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.172 of Singhanahalli village,
Hossur hobli, Gowribidanur taluk. It is further contented
that prior to 1983-84, all the revenue documents
pertaining to Sy.No.172 were standing in the name of A.K.
Chikkakadirappa by virtue of pouthi varasu and that the
Khata and RTC were mutated to the name of defendant
No.1 and Naraseeyappa jointly void M.R.No.62/83-84.
That all the revenue documents pertaining to Sy.No.172
measuring 2 acres 3 guntas stands in the name of
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
HC-KAR
Naraseeyappa and defendant No.1 jointly. That the
defendants are regularly paying the requisite taxes and
hence, the prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
4. The Trial Court having considered the
averments made in the plaint as well as in the written
statement framed the Issues and allowed the parties to
lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record
particularly, the admission on the part of DW1 in the class
examination that his father had sold the property in the
year 1978 in respect of Sy.No.172 and also taken note of
the claim made by the defendants in paragraph 17. In
paragraph 18, the Trial Court taken note of the admission
given by DW2 that she is the second wife of Chinnappa
and her name has not been mentioned in the family tree
affidavit which his marked as Ex.D1. Defendant No.3 who
has been examined as DW1 deposed that scheduled
property was inherited by his father Chinnappa. In
paragraph 19, a discussion was made that except Ex.D8
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
HC-KAR
tax paid receipt pertaining to Sy.No.172 dated 24.11.2006
not produced any recent document and apart from that
plaintiff also relied upon the sale deed as well as the
document of RTC of 2013-14 and certified copy of
mutation register bearing No.62/83-84. When DW1
categorically admits that there was a sale in favour of the
plaintiff in the year 1978, the answer elicited from the
mouth of the witness that in sometimes, the property
stands in the name of the defendants, will not create any
right. The fact that originally property belongs to the
defendants' family and the same was sold long back i.e.,
in the year 1978 and the same is not in dispute. When
there was a sale and the same was not disputed by the
defendants, the title follows the possession. Hence, the
Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court,
filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court.
5. The First Appellate Court having considered the
grounds urged in the appeal formulated the points and
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
HC-KAR
having re-appreciated the material available on record
taken note of sale deed at Ex.P1 and also answered Point
Nos.1 to 3 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that
the Trial Court rightly considered the documents which
have been placed on record and also the admission on the
part of DW1 in the cross-examination wherein he deposed
that after the death of Chinnappa, the name of defendant
No.1 had been mutated by way of inheritance and the
mutation appears to have taken place after the execution
of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and that
will not create any right and only the document of
mutation came into existence after the death of their
father, but sale deed was executed on 12.01.1978, which
gains the credence over the mutation entry. The fact is
discussed in paragraph 17 by the First Appellate Court and
held that the RTCs and tax paid receipts are not only the
conclusive proofs of possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
over the property but also the sale deed is produced and
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
HC-KAR
the recitals of the sale deed clearly disclose the delivery of
possession.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing
for the appellants before this Court is that when the
possession is with the appellants, there cannot be any
order of granting of permanent injunction and prays this
Court to frame the substantive question of law that
granting the relief of declaration when the defendants
have denied the possession does not arise and the plaintiff
also failed to prove his possession.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that the appellants deposed that when
the possession is with the appellants and the
respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his possession, there
cannot be any order of permanent injunction. The said
contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants
cannot be accepted since DW1 and DW2 have admitted
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
HC-KAR
the very execution of the said deed in favour of the
plaintiff in the year 1978 and the registered document also
indicates the delivery of possession but mere entry in the
MR is subsequent to the death of father and hence, the
pauthi varasu mutation will not create any right in favour
of the defendants and the same will not substantiate the
possession as contented by the appellants' counsel. The
registered document prevails over the subsequent
document of MR and MR also came into existence on
account of death of their father and the very father had
executed the sale deed in the year 1978 and the same is
admitted by DW1 and DW2. When such being the case,
the very contention of the counsel appearing to the
appellants that the appellants are in possession cannot be
accepted since the title follows the possession. The sale
made by the father of DW1 also not in dispute and even
not questioned the sale deed executed in the year 1978 in
favour of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, I do not
find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame
NC: 2025:KHC:45822
HC-KAR
substantive question of law when both the question of fact
and question of law are considered by the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
Order
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
