Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rangaswamaiah vs Sri. Gangarangaiah @ Mayya on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
RSA No. 377 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.377 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH
S/O LATE GANGIAHA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(a) SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
1(b) SRI. GANGARAJAIAH
S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
1(c) SMT. LALITHA
D/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
Digitally signed W/O NAGARAJU
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL ARE
R/AT HONNENAHALLI
GULUR HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 118.
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
GULUR HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
RSA No. 377 of 2022
HC-KAR
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 118.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE AND ALSO FOR
PROPOSED APPELLANT NO.1(a) TO 1(c))
AND:
1. SRI. GANGARANGAIAH @ MAYYA
S/O MUDDARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O HONNENAHALLI
GULUR HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 118.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.261/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 08.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.372/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
RSA No. 377 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for
respondent.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of
declaration and injunction is that suit schedule property
Sy.No.8/2 totally measuring 2.29 acres, out of which 2.32
acres of Honnenahalli, Gulur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk
belongs to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are the absolute
owners in possession of the property. It is further
contended that defendant without having right, title,
interest or possession over the suit schedule property and
in collusion with the revenue authority has obtained illegal
entries of the suit schedule property in his name. Based on
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
the said illegal entries, attempting to interfere with the
plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. Hence, filed the suit.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the
defendant appeared and filed the written statement
contending that his father Mudalarangaiah has purchased
the portion of the suit schedule property under the
registered sale deed dated 22.10.1977 and they are in
possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs
are not having any title over the suit schedule property
which is morefully described in the written statement.
Hence, they are not entitled for the relief of declaration.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues
are framed and the Trial Court allowed both the plaintiffs
and the defendant to lead evidence. The Trial Court having
considered the both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record as well pleadings of the parties, particularly in
paragraph No.14 taken note of the claim made by the
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
plaintiffs and also the case of the defendant and taken
note of the total extent of Sy.No.8, 9 acres, 28 guntas and
how title flows between the parties. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that extent of 1 acre, 16 guntas was purchased in
terms of Ex.P2 in the year 1960 from the brother and the
remaining 1 acre 16 guntas was allotted to them in the
partition and total to the extent of 2 acres 22 guntas. The
Trial Court also taken note of the subsequent sale deeds
which have been executed i.e., Exs.D5 to D8 to the extent
of 2 acres 5 guntas which were sold by the mother of the
plaintiffs in different bit of land and also taken note of
admission on the part of P.W.1 and their father has sold 3
guntas of land in the suit property and also sold total
property to the extent of 2 acres 8 guntas in the suit
property and now, the remaining land is standing in the
name of the plaintiffs. Taking into note of all these
documentary evidence, the Court comes to the conclusion
that rightly cannot seek the relief of declaration to the
extent of 2 acres of 32 guntas as claimed. Hence,
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
dismissed the suit answering issue Nos.1 to 3 as 'negative'
and issue No.4 as 'affirmative', since the defendant had
purchased the property and also produced the document
of Ex.D7 that he had purchased the land to the extent of
30 guntas from the mother of the plaintiffs.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, appeal is filed in R.A.No.261/2019 is filed. The
Appellate Court having considered the grounds which are
urged in the first appeal, formulated the points whether
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires
interference and answered the point No.1 as 'affirmative'
that the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the suit and
other two points for consideration whether I.A.No.2 for
additional evidence filed by the appellants deserves to be
allowed and whether the impugned judgment and decree
calls for interference were answered as 'negative' and
comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court requires interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
7. It is also important to note that when an
attempt was made before the Appellate Court also with
regard to the description of the properties Sy.Nos.8/2 and
8/3 and sale was made, in paragraph No.26 taken note of
admission on the part of P.W.1 with regard to the claim
that defendant is trying to claim land in Sy.No.8/3 as
Sy.No.8/2 and thereby, plaintiffs have given up the said
contention in his cross- examination. Even otherwise, it is
to be noted that, irrespective of the weaknesses on the
part of the defendant's case, it is for the plaintiffs to prove
their case on their own strength and also considered the
documents Exs.D5 to D10 of which Ex.D7 is admitted,
which registered sale deeds shows that plaintiffs' mother
had herself sold away various portions of the suit schedule
property to various purchasers, irrespective of the location
of the defendant's property in Sy.Nos.8/2 or 8/3, plaintiffs'
suit will have to fail. With regard to an attempt that the
property which was sold is not the suit schedule property,
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
the same was also answered by the Appellate Court and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. The main contention of counsel appearing for
the appellants before this Court that both the Courts failed
to take note of both oral and documentary evidence
available on record. The counsel also vehemently
contented that both the Courts below are not justified in
relying upon the sale deeds allegedly executed by
Hanumakka when they are not related to the suit schedule
property i.e., land bearing Sy.No.8/2 of Honnenahalli
village. Hence, the very conclusion that defendant is the
owner of the suit schedule property and claiming his right
through Venkatappa, son of Lakshmabhovi is erroneous.
Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame
substantial question of law.
The counsel appearing for the appellants also would
submit that phodi work was done in the year 1930 itself
and the properties are divided as Sy.Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 8/3
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
and no specific survey numbers are mentioned in the sale
made by the mother of the plaintiffs.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the Trial Court
and Appellate Court considering the sale deeds executed
by the mother of the plaintiffs to the extent of 2 acres 5
guntas in different bit of lands and also father had sold the
land to the extent of 3 guntas, comes to the conclusion
that property to the extent of 2 acres 8 guntas was
already sold. Hence, cannot claim any declaration to the
extent of 2 acres 32 guntas and it is not the claim of the
plaintiffs/appellants that they were having more than 2
acres 32 guntas and major portions of the properties were
already sold. Hence, question of granting the relief of
declaration does not arise and the same is also based on
the documentary evidence and there is no perversity in
the finding.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants
and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it is
not the case of the plaintiffs that family was having more
than 2 acres 32 guntas and counsel appearing to the
appellants also brought to the notice of this Court that in
the year 1930, in terms of Ex.P2, the brother of father of
the plaintiffs had purchased other portion to the extent of
1 acre 16 guntas and 1 acre 32 guntas was also allotted in
favour of the plaintiffs' father, in total to the extent of 2
acres 32 guntas. Having considered this contention, the
counselwould vehemently contended that the property
which was sold is not in respect of Sy.No.8/2 and would
vehemently contend that there is a dispute with regard to
identity of the property. But the appellants are not
claiming more than the property to the extent of 2 acres
32 guntas and the Trial Court in paragraph No.14 in detail
taken note of the sale deeds which are marked as Exs.D5
to D10, wherein 2 acres 5 guntas have already been sold
by the mother and father also sold the portion of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
property to the extent of 2 acres 8 guntas and remaining
extent is only lesser area. But, claim is made to the extent
of 2 acres 32 guntas and when these documents are
placed before the Court and also there is an admission
with regard to sale of these properties and those sale
deeds are not questioned by the plaintiffs at any point of
time and now cannot contend that those properties are not
sold and taking the advantage of the fact survey numbers
are not properly mentioned, cannot claim that they are the
owners when major portion of the property was already
sold i.e., 2 acres 8 guntas by the mother as well as the
father i.e., mother sold to the extent of 2 acres, 5 guntas
and all these factors were also taken note of. With regard
to the contention which has been raised in the second
appeal also, the First Appellate Court with regard to the
survey number is concerned, discussed in detail in
paragraph No.26 and when such discussion is made by the
Trial Court with regard to the factual aspects as well as the
question of law, the question of admitting the second
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46581
HC-KAR
appeal does not arise and when there is no perversity in
the finding, question of admitting the second appeal does
not arise.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST,CHS
