Karnataka High Court
Smt. Muniyamma vs Sri. M. Byrareddy on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
RSA No. 454 of 2025
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.454 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
R/AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. BYRAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE N.MUNIYAPPA
Digitally signed R/AT GEJJAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
by DEVIKA M KASABA HOBLI
Location: HIGH SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
W/O S.R.NARAYANASWAMY
R/O SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.27/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
RSA No. 454 of 2025
HC-KAR
JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.110/2015 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The suit is filed for the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction. It is pleaded in the plaint that she is
the absolute owner and peaceful possession and long term
enjoyment over the land which is morefully described in
the schedule and these properties are acquired through a
grant made by the government Darkasth. Since then,
they said Kalappa @ Agadur Munishamappa become the
absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property and he died very long back leaving
behind his one son namely Byrappa who is the plaintiff's
father-in-law after the death of Kalappa, the Byrappa has
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
become the absolute owner of the scheduled properties.
The said Byrappa also died leaving behind his only son
Munishamappa, husband of the plaintiff. The said
Munishamappa has inherited the suit schedule properties
as absolute owner and continued in possession and
enjoyment of the property by paying tax and he died in
the year 1985 leaving behind his wife Muniyamma i.e.,
plaintiff and after the death of her husband, the plaintiff
has become absolute owner continued in possession over
the property. The defendants have no right title over the
suit schedule property but started interfering with their
possession. They are also trying to deny the very good
title of the plaintiff and hence sought for the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction. In pursuance of the
suit summons defendants appeared and filed written
statement by denying all the plaint averments and claim of
the plaintiff. Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule
properties purchased by Chikkanarayanappa son of
Kempanna, who is none other than senior uncle of 1st
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
defendant through an absolute sale deed dated
10.08.1978 executed by Byrappa son of Munishamappa
and to the said sale deed, the plaintiff also attested her
signature being consent witness and further husband of
the plaintiff and her father-in-law have sold the same to
meet their family and legal necessities and since then the
said Chikkanarayanappa become the absolute owner of the
Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties as per MR
No.7/1978-79 revenue entries were also transferred to his
name by the revenue authorities. It is also contended that
they were enjoying the properties as absolute owner and
1st defendant's father inherited the same and revenue
entries also transferred, after his demise on 29.09.2003,
the 1st defendant inherited the same and continues to be
in possession of the same and in Item No.1 and his family
to meet their family legal necessities have sold one gunta
of land to 2nd defendant and now the 2nd defendant has
been in possession of said one gunta of land.
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
3. It is further contended that Item No.3 of the
plaint schedule property purchased by the 1st defendant's
father N.Muniyappa through an absolute registered sale
deed dated 26.12.1986 executed by plaintiff's mother-in-
law Mugemma @ Narasamma wife of Byrappa and her son
plaintiff's husband Munishamappa and the revenue entries
were also transferred in favour of Muniyappa. In the year
2003, he passed away and defendant No.1 inherited Item
No.3 of the plaint schedule property and claimed the
ownership over the suit schedule property by the
defendant. All the revenue documents stands in their
name. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the
plaintiff and defendants framed the issues and allowed the
parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court considering the
material available on record, dismissed the suit in coming
to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not proved the case
and had accepted the case of the defendants that there
was a sale on 10.08.1978 and Item No.3 of the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
schedule property also purchased by the defendant's
father Muniyappa from Mugemma @ Narasamma.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit,
present appeal is filed before this Court. The Appellate
Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, framed the point for
consideration whether the plaintiff is the owner and in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
and interference as well as judgment and decree of the
Trial Court requires interference. The Appellate Court
having re-assessed the material available on record, in
detail discussed the same and in paragraph No.19 comes
to the conclusion that during the cross-examination she
stated that the suit schedule properties are standing in the
name of husband, while transferring the property to the
defendants wherein in order to grab the same and now
admits that suit schedule property stands in the name of
the defendants. But, P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed before the
Court that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
schedule property and they are in possession. But, P.W.2
not subjected for cross-examination and only P.W.3 was
subjected to cross-examination. The defendant No.1 is
examined and D.W.1 reiterated the evidence and also
particularly got marked the document Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7
and claim is made that defendant No.2 in his evidence
contend that defendants are owner and in possession of
the suit schedule property and categorically deposed that
Byrappa and Munishamappa have sold the suit schedule
properties. The defendant No.1 is also examined as D.W.1
and reiterates the written statement averments and to
substantiate the same, documents of Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 are
marked.
5. The First Appellate Court having considered
both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the
conclusion that land bearing Sy.No.123/3 measuring to an
extent of 32 guntas and Item No.2 land bearing
Sy.No.123/7 measuring 1-05 acres acquired by
Chikkanarayanappa, who is none other than the husband
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
of plaintiff which were ancestral properties of Byrappa for
lawful consideration. Basing on sale in favour of
Chikkanarayanappa, the revenue entries were also
transferred in favour of Chikkanarayanappa vide sale deed
dated 10.08.1978 marked as Ex.D.1, Mutation extract
marked as Ex.D.16 for the year 1987-1988, 1988-89,
1990-91. Chikkanarayanappa died leaving behind his
daughter Smt.Jayamma who is the 2nd defendant in these
proceedings. Thus, defendants herein being legal heirs of
the deceased Chikkanarayanappa succeeded the said lands
and the revenue entries transferred in favour of
N.Muniyappa, who is no other than brother of
Chikkanarayanappa in the year 1992. The said Muniyappa
also died on 29.09.2003. The 1st defendant, being the
legal heirs of N.Muniyappa succeeded the said land. After
the death of Muniyappa, his son 1st defendant succeeded
to 31 guntas and 2nd defendant inherited 1 guntas and in
favour of 2nd defendant, said documents marked as
Ex.D.39.
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
6. The First Appellate Court having considered
both oral and documentary evidence, particularly in
paragraph No.24, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff in
her plaint stated that suit property is granted in favour of
Kalappa son of Adaguru Munishamappa in this regard.
There is no grant certificate or saguvali chit and revenue
records do not create any title of immovable properties.
The Ex.P.2 to 20 are revenue records do not create any
title in favour of the plaintiff. As on the date of the suit,
the revenue records are standing in the name of
defendants having presumptive value under Section 133
regarding entries in these records unless contrary is
proved. The plaintiff has not placed any documents to
show that the name of the defendants has been entered
illegally. On perusal of Ex.D.1, Byrappa and
Munishamappa have sold the suit schedule property Item
No.1 and 2 in favour of Chikkanarayanappa. On perusal of
Ex.D.2 reveals that Mugemma, Narayana and
Munishamappa have sold Item No.3 in favour of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
Muniyappa. Ex.D.1 and D2 are the registered documents
having presumptory value of the contents of the registered
documents true and correct and the same is not disclosed
by placing any evidence before the Court by the plaintiff
and hence taken note of even lawful possession and
interference by the defendants and also the same is
disputed. Though, the suit survey number granted in the
name of Kalappa as per plaint, she has not placed any
document to that effect and having taken note of it, comes
to the conclusion that the document does not prove any
title in favour of the plaintiff and comes to the conclusion
that defendants have made out the case, but plaintiffs
have not placed any material to grant the relief of
declaration and injunction. When the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court taken note of both oral and
documentary evidence and comes to the conclusion that
there was a sale and sale deeds are also executed and
based on the said sale deed, all the properties stands in
the name of defendants. When such finding is given by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46482
HC-KAR
Trial Court and Appellate Court considering the material
record, I do not find any perversity and also both question
of fact and question of law are considered by both the
Courts and dismissed the suit and the same is confirmed
by the Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to
admit and frame substantive question of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Second Appeal is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if
any do not survive for consideration, the
same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
