Karnataka High Court
Attale Sidda Shetty vs Rathnamma on 17 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46933
RSA No. 321 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.321 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
ATTALE SIDDA SHETTY
S/O LATE RACHA SHETTY
AGED 69 YEARS
CHENNIPURADAMALE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHAMRAJANAGARA TALUK AN DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. P C VINITHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARUMBAIAH T A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed RATHNAMMA
by DEVIKA M W/O LATE SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH AGED 30 YEARS
COURT OF R/AT CHENNIPURADAMOLE
KARNATAKA VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTIRCT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2019
PASSED IN R.A.No.08/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGARA AND
ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46933
RSA No. 321 of 2021
HC-KAR
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 respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court that the suit schedule property to the extent of
19 guntas is an ancestral property. Out of that 19 guntas, sold
2½ guntas of 'A' schedule property to one Sri H.R. Sreenivasa
Murthy through a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2001 and
10 guntas of 'B' schedule property was sold to one Sri B
Ravindranatha Reddy through a registered sale deed dated
31.12.2007 and remaining 6½ guntas of 'C' schedule property
is in possession of the plaintiff. Recently, on durasthi work, it
came to know that 5 guntas of land was encroached by the
defendants which is morefully described as 'D' schedule
property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of declaration,
NC: 2025:KHC:46933
HC-KAR
recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. In response
to the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed
written statement contending that the entire land of 19 guntas
was already sold in the year 1951 itslef. Thus, the question of
granting the relief of declaration and possession does not arise.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings as
well as defence made by the parties, framed the Issues and
allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record comes to the conclusion that originally the property
was purchased by Basavashetty S/o Rachashetty in the year
1946 and subsequently, the very same extent of 19 guntas of
land was sold in terms of Ex.D1. But the plaintiff got the
property mutated in his favour in terms of Ex.P10 without any
basis and there is no recital that how the ancestors of plaintiff
got the suit schedule property. But the plaintiff contend that
subsequently, he also sold some portion of the property and
now, claiming to the extent of 6½ guntas and out of that 6½
guntas, 5 guntas are in the possession of the defendants. The
Trial Court taken note of Ex.P16 as well as Ex.D1 and also the
NC: 2025:KHC:46933
HC-KAR
admission on the part of PW1 wherein he says that he is not
aware of anything about Ex.D1. The Trial Court also taken note
of the fact that the said document is of the year 1951 and the
same is a registered document and comes to the conclusion
that the plaintiff has not made out any case to declare that
plaintiff is the absolute owner. Hence, dismissed the suit. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was
filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.8/2017.
5. The First Appellate Court also having considered the
grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Points that
whether the Trial Court failed to appreciate the admissions of
defendant in the cross examination regarding ownership,
possession and encroachment which has been supported by
documentary evidence and wrongly dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff and whether it requires interference of the First
Appellate Court and whether the Trial Court comes to a wrong
conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish his case. The
First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the total
extent of the land and also the document of Ex.P16 as well as
NC: 2025:KHC:46933
HC-KAR
Ex.D1 and subsequent sale made as well as the answer elicited
from the mouth of the witnesses and comes to the conclusion
that the property mentioned in Ex.P16 and Ex.D1 are one and
the same thus, the plaintiff/appellant is not having any right to
declare the same in his favour since what the extent of
property was purchased on 29.10.1946 was subsequently sold
in the year 1951 itself with entire extent. When the property
was already sold with specific boundaries under the registered
document, any sort of evidence will not comes to the help of
the plaintiff to prove the ownership and title. Hence, confirmed
the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said
concurrent finding of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have
committed an error in dismissing the suit only giving weightage
to the cross examination portion of PW1 and considering Ex.P9,
P16 and D1 and both the Courts committed an error only
relying upon the oral evidence when documentary evidence
available on record. The counsel also contend that when
NC: 2025:KHC:46933
HC-KAR
Ex.P16 and Ex.D1 are the title deed in respect of the suit
schedule property, mere fact that Ex.D1 is the title deed of the
plaintiff produced by the defendant cannot curtail the right and
title of the plaintiff. Hence this Court has to admit the appeal
and frame the substantial question of law.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts
have taken note of Ex.P16 as well as Ex.D1 and rightly comes
to the conclusion that property was already sold and hence,
question of granting any relief does not arise.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that the plaintiff pleaded that the suit
schedule property is an ancestral property. On the other hand,
Ex.P16 clearly discloses that property was purchased by the
great grandfather of the plaintiff in the year 1946 and
subsequently, grandfather sold the very same property to the
extent of 19 guntas in the year 1951 itself. Both the Courts
taken note of the fact that the property got mutated stating
that the same is an ancestral property but there is no basis to
NC: 2025:KHC:46933
HC-KAR
get transferred the said property in the name of the plaintiff
and subsequently, sold some portion of the properties without
having any title. Apart from that evidence on the part of PW1
who has been examined before the Trial Court categorically
admits that he was not having any knowledge about the sale
deed of the year 1951 that is Ex.D1. When such admission was
given, both oral and documentary evidence was considered by
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and hence,
the question of fact and question of law are considered in a
proper perspective by both the Courts. Hence, no grounds are
made to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial
questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
