Karnataka High Court
Manchanaika vs Bokkanaika on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
RSA No. 693 of 2024
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.693 OF 2024 (POS)
BETWEEN:
MANCHANAIKA
S/O SIDDALINGA NAIKA,
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT ITNA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
H D KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT 571121
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA H. K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BOKKANAIKA
KARNATAKA S/O LATE BOKKANAIKA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(A). BETTANAIKA
S/O BOKKANAIAKA
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
1(B) DEVALAMMA
W/O BETTANAIKA
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
RSA No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR
1(C) BASAVANAIKA
S/O BOKKANAIAKA
MAJOR
1(D). LINGAMMA
D/O BOKKANAIAKA
MAJOR
1(E) PUTTAMMA
W/O BEKKANAIKA
D/O LATE BOKKANIAKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT ITNA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 571121
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2023
PASSED IN R.A NO.2/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D. KOTE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
RSA No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of possession is that the
grandmother of the plaintiff Smt. Devamma is the owner of the
house bearing No.182/1, 182/2 and 182/3 totally measuring
24x66. This property is divided into Item Nos.1 and 2 and the
Item No.1 portion of property is in possession of the plaintiff
and portion of Item No.2 property is in the possession of the
defendants. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the family members of
defendant No.1. The grandmother of plaintiff is an old aged
woman. On the ground of humanity, given some portion of the
house i.e., Item No.2 property to the defendants for their
residential purpose with subject to condition. These facts are
known to everybody in the village and even today defendant
No.1 and his family members i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in
permissible possession of Item No.2 of the property. The
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
HC-KAR
Khatha of the suit Item Nos.1 and 2 stands in the name of the
grandmother of the plaintiff. Apart from that KEB bills and
other revenue records are standing in her name. The
grandmother of plaintiff executed a registered gift deed in
favour of the plaintiff on 27.01.2012 in respect of the suit
schedule property. By virtue of the said registered gift deed,
the plaintiff acquired the ownership and possession of the suit
schedule property. The Item No.2 property is in dilapidation
condition, therefore, the plaintiff made an enquiry with the
defendants that to vacate Item No.2 property to demolish and
reconstruct the same. Though defendants agreed to vacate, but
did not vacate the same. The plaintiff also made an application
to the competent authority i.e., Panchayath for change of katha
in relation to entire suit schedule property by virtue of said gift
deed. The same was objected by filing an objections and hence,
an endorsement was issued and defendants also refused to
vacate premises. Hence, filed the suit.
4. In response to the suit summons, the defendants
appeared and defendant No.2 filed the written statement
denying the entire plaint averments whereas the ownership of
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
HC-KAR
the property was denied. He further contended that suit
schedule properties are the ancestral properties of both plaintiff
and defendants. There is no partition or division between the
plaintiff and defendants family. The plaintiff's family is residing
in Item No.1 property and the family of defendant No.1 is
residing in Item No.2 property. It is further contended in the
written statement that the plaintiff's grandmother and mother
of defendant No.1 names are the same and taking undue
advantage of the similarities of the name of the grandmother of
the plaintiff and mother of the defendant No.1, concocted the
documents behind the back of the defendants. The khatha of
the suit schedule property stands in the name of mother of
defendant No.1. The defendants denied that the plaintiff's
grandmother was given second item of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff's grandmother has no right, title or
interest over the suit schedule property to execute alleged gift
deed in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged gifted is not binding
upon the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs are not having any
right over the suit schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings
available on record, framed the Issues and allowed the parties
to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both
oral and documentary evidence available on record answered
Issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that
plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the possession and also
for mandatory injunction since the plaintiff has not placed any
material to prove the case. On the other hand, the defendants
proved that grandmother of the plaintiff has no right, title or
interest over the suit schedule property to execute the alleged
gift deed. In paragraph 30, the Trial Court in detail discussed
with regard to the title is concerned in respect of execution of
the gift deed and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial
court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.2/2023. The First
Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the
appeal memo, formulated the Points and having reassessed
both oral and document evidence available on record
particularly, considering the documents and evidence in
paragraphs 45 to 48 comes to the conclusion that in order to
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
HC-KAR
prove the title of the grandmother of the plaintiff, nothing is
placed on record and concurred with the finding of the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the
Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error in not considering both oral and documentary evidence
available on record. Inspite of defendants have not
substantiated their defence, Trial Court committed an error in
dismissing the suit of the appellant. So also the Appellate Court
committed an error in not considering the material since there
is an admission on the part of defendants that the suit schedule
property is the ancestral properties and the defendants
specifically denied that grandmother of the plaintiff was not
having any title or right to execute the gift deed. Hence, this
Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial
question of law.
8. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also on
perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the plaintiff
specifically pleaded in the plaint that the property originally
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
HC-KAR
belongs to Devamma to the extent of 24x66 and the same was
divided as Item Nos.1 and 2 and the said Devamma had
executed the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the
suit schedule property. But the defendants have filed objections
contending that grandmother is not having any right to execute
the gift deed. Hence, it is the burden on the plaintiff to prove
the same stating that his grandmother was having title over the
property since the defendants have denied the very title. The
Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record in paragraph 30 comes to the
conclusion that burden lies on the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1
and 2 i.e., grandmother is the owner of the suit schedule
property but in order to prove the factum of ownership of the
grandmother, nothing is placed on record. The counsel for the
appellant vehemently contend that RTC stands in the name of
the grandmother but based on the RTC, the Court cannot come
to a conclusion that plaintiff is the owner. Apart from that the
specific reasoning is given by the Trial Court that plaintiff has
not produced any title deed of the Devamma to prove his case.
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
HC-KAR
9. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the
material available on record, taken note of both oral and
documentary evidence wherein it observed that the conclusion
of the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property belongs to
the defendants without any material is absolutely wrong and it
would cause serious impact on another suit which is pending for
consideration in O.S.No.397/2012 for the relief of partition and
separate possession by the present defendants against the
present plaintiff and others. When the defendants themselves
pleaded the suit schedule property is a joint property of
themselves and plaintiff, such observation of learned Judge that
scheduled property belongs to defendants is absolutely wrong
and it requires interference with the said observation made by
the Trial Court. Having taken note of the material available on
record, the First Appellate Court also reassessed the materials
and in paragraph 49, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has
failed to establish that he is the owner of the suit schedule
property based on the gift deed executed by his grandmother
since the very owner herself was not having any right over the
said property. When the plaintiff fails to establish his title over
suit schedule property to the extent stated in the suit, then he
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46386
HC-KAR
is not entitled for the relief of possession. Both the Courts have
taken note of the fact that the claim made by the plaintiff is
only based on the gift deed and except the gift deed, no other
documents are placed before the Court to prove that the very
donor has got title. When such being the case, I do not find any
ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial questions
of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
