Karnataka High Court
Sri Onkaramurthy vs Rangegowda on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
RSA No. 884 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. 884 OF 2024 (INJ-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ONKARAMURTHY
S/O GURUMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SRI MOHAN KUMAR
S/O GURUMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. SRI KRISHNA KUMAR
S/O GURUMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT K BYADARAHALLY VILLAGE,
Digitally signed SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
by DEVIKA M
HASSAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI ANIL RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGEGOWDA
S/O MUDLIGIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. MANJA
S/O MUDLIGIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
RSA No. 884 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. KUMARA
S/O MUDLIGIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT K BYADARAHALLY VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
HASSAN
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2024 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.50/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, HASSAN 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 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 appellants.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that plaintiffs are the absolute owners
of the suit schedule property and they are in possession and
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
HC-KAR
enjoyment of the same but the defendants are interfering with
their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
The defendants in the written statement specifically contend
that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and further
contend that entire averments of the plaint is false. It is
further contend that the grandfather of the defendants by name
Thimmegowda had 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.217/4 of
K.Byadarahalli Village of Hassan Taluk and mother of defendant
No.1 by name Smt. Lakkamma along with her elder son
Nanjegowda had sold 2¼ guntas of land to the father of the
plaintiffs on 26.04.1977 and she has also executed the said
sale deed on behalf of defendant No.1 and the property
purchased by the father of the plaintiffs comes to 2,340 square
feet, but, the plaintiffs are claiming the measurement of suit
schedule property as 4,127 square feet. Hence, they are not
entitled for any relief.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence and particularly taking note of the
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
HC-KAR
material and record and also the admission on the part of PW1
which has been discussed in paragraph 20 as well as 21, comes
to the conclusion that the plaintiffs has title only in respect of
2¼ guntas of land and the same is also denied by the
defendants and DW1 evidence also discussed in paragraph 22.
Having considered the material on record, the Trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the
First Appellate Court.
5. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the
material available on record and keeping the findings recorded
by the Trial Court in paragraph 19, reassessed both oral and
documentary evidence available on record and observation is
made in paragraph 20 that the Trial Court clearly observed that
one gunta is equal to 1089 square feet and for 2¼ guntas
comes to 2450 square feet and claim made by the plaintiffs is
excess than what they have purchased and that is 1,677
square feet more claim than what they have purchased. The
First Appellate Court also taken note of admission on the part
of PW1 and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
HC-KAR
concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second
appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing to the
appellants is that both the Courts have committed an error in
dismissing the suit and reasons assigned while dismissing the
suit as well as the appeal is not proper in respect of Ex.P4 - the
demand register extract produced by the plaintiff. Hence, this
Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantive
question of law.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it
discloses that the counsel for the appellants mainly relies upon
the document of Ex.P4 and Ex.P4 is only a document of
demand register extract. Admittedly, the sale is only in respect
of 2¼ guntas of land and not more than that. But claim is made
more than the what the plaintiffs have purchased and only
based on the demand register extract, the Court cannot grant
the relief of declaration that too more extent of land what has
not been conveyed to the plaintiffs. When such material was
taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court,
NC: 2025:KHC:46390
HC-KAR
this Court do not found any perversity in the findings of both
the Courts since both the Courts held that where there is no
title, question of granting the relief of declaration does not
arise. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the appeal and to
frame substantive question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
