Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumangala vs The Chief Secretary on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
RSA No. 1736 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1736 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMANGALA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O. R. SHIVAKUMAR,
R/AT MARALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK-572 106.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 001.
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572101.
5. THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
RSA No. 1736 of 2019
HC-KAR
URUKERE KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
BY ITS SECRETARY AND PRESIDENT
572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2019 PASSED IN
RA NO.135/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT TUMAKURU DISMISSNG THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 04.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.244/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., I AT TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title
over the suit schedule property declaring that the entries
in the revenue records are illegal and unlawful and to
enter her name in the revenue records and for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with
the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
HC-KAR
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule
property is a 'Sarkari Kharab Gunduthopu'. This property
was granted in favour of one K.Hanumaiah
S/o Thirumalaiah on 13.10.1968 and Sannad was issued in
his favour. As such, Hanumaiah became the absolute
owner and his name was entered in the Index of Land and
Record of Rights. Subsequently, Hanumaiah sold the
schedule property in favour of one Lalithamma W/o
Venkataramaiah under a Sale Deed and delivered the
possession to her. In turn, the said Lalithamma had sold
the suit land vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.10.1980
in favour of the plaintiff and possession was also handed
over. On 25.10.1982, the Tahsildar, Tumakuru has
ordered for transfer of Khatha and Pahani in the name of
the plaintiff through Order No.MR.4/8485.
4. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru,
without any material evidence, initiated proceedings and
without issuing any notice either to the plaintiff or to said
Hanumaiah had cancelled the grant made in favour of
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
HC-KAR
Hanumaiah. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff
in Writ Petition No.24777/1991 before this Court, which
was partly allowed by cancelling the mutation entries.
Therefore, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. Despite the same, the
Tahsildar - defendant No.4 without issuing any notice to
the plaintiff, has entered the name of the Government in
the records of the suit land. Thereafter, since the Grama
Panchayat - defendant No.5 trespassed into the suit
property by taking illegal possession, the plaintiff filed suit
against the defendants.
5. After entering appearance, defendant No.4-Tahsildar
denied the averments made in the plaint and contended
that originally the suit land was a 'Government Kharab
Gundu Thopu' and K.Hanumaiah had been granted a
Sannad to manage the said land, but the said land had not
been granted to him. Therefore, K. Hanumaiah had no
right and title to sell the suit property in favour of
Lalithamma or any other person. It is his further case that
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
HC-KAR
defendant No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Order LND(T)
CR 3/8687 dated 19.09.1988 cancelled the Sannad and
consequently, MR.No.45/7879 dated 20.03.1979 and MR
No.4/8485 dated 15.10.1985 were also cancelled and
declared the said land as a 'Government Gundu Thopu'.
Thereafter, the said land was granted to the construction
of a house under 'Ashraya Yojana' vide Order
No.LND(Tmk) SL 21/9697 dated 03.02.1997. However,
the said order was recalled and the said land was reserved
for construction of Government building vide Order No.
LND CR 45/9697 dated 01.01.1997. The Government had
also granted Rs.10.00 lakhs for construction. As such, he
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. The Trial Court, after framing the relevant issues, has
partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that
though the plaintiff has failed to prove her title over the
suit schedule property, she has proved her possession and
interference caused by the defendants and as such she is
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
HC-KAR
entitled to protect the same from the interference of the
defendants.
7. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re-
appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the
findings of the Trial Court and held that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court. As such, the First Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents on record.
9. As could be gathered from records, the sannad
issued in favour of Hanumaiah and the subsequent Sale
Deeds including the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff are
not seriously in dispute. It is also not in dispute that by
virtue of Sannad, the revenue entries were mutated in the
name of subsequent purchasers and in the name of
plaintiff. The cancellation of sannad and the revenue
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
HC-KAR
entries passed by the Deputy Commissioner though
challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in
WP.24777/1991, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
partly allowed the writ petition by sustaining the
cancellation of mutation entries.
10. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that sannad issued in favour of
Hanumaiah had not been cancelled, as such, the
subsequent Sale Deeds including the Sale Deed made in
favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property
sustain. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have granted the
relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.
11. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be
accepted for the simple reason that the findings of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.24777/1991 in
respect of sannad, the nature of the land, the limited right
of Hanumaiah and the subsequent Sale Deeds had not
been challenged. However, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,
NC: 2025:KHC:46784
HC-KAR
had been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court in respect of possession of the suit
schedule property by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has
been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. In such circumstance, the prayer of the plaintiff
for the relief of injunction has been rightly granted by both
the Courts by rejecting the relief of declaration.
12. As such, in my view, there is absolutely no question
of law, much less substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
