Rudrappa S/O Sri Badagi Thippaiah vs Hanumakka W/O Sri Eranna
2025 Latest Caselaw 10472 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Rudrappa S/O Sri Badagi Thippaiah vs Hanumakka W/O Sri Eranna on 20 November, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:48252
                                                           RSA No. 159 of 2010


                      HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR
                                              MAGADUM
                            REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2010
                                              (DEC/INJ-)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SRI. RUDRAPPA
                            S/O SRI. BADAGI THIPPAIAH,
                            AGE: 65 YEARS,

                      2.    SRI. RANGAPPA
                            S/O SRI. BADAGI THIPPAIAH,
                            AGE: 63 YEARS,
                            BOTH ARE R/O BARHAMPURA VILLAGE
                            AIMANGALA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK,
                            CHITHRADURGA DIST-577501.
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
                                                                   ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              (BY SRI. R. B. SADASHIVAPPA, A/W
KARNATAKA
                          SRI. G. B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    SMT. HANUMAKKA
                            W/O SRI ERANNA,
                            AGE: 48 YEARS,

                      2.    SMT. CHITTAMMA
                            W/O SRI. THAMANNA,
                            AGE: 46 YEARS,
                            BOTH ARE R/O YELAGHATTA
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:48252
                                       RSA No. 159 of 2010


HC-KAR




    GOLLARAHATTI,
    CHELLAKERE TALUK,
    CHITHRADURGA DIST-577501.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2009 PASSED BY THE
ADDL.    SESSIONS     JUDGE,  FAST    TRACK    COURT,
CHITHRADURGA IN R.A.16/2006 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2006 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) CHITHRADURGA IN O.S.132/1995 AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S.132/1995 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The captioned second appeal is filed by defendants

assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below

wherein plaintiffs suit is decreed declaring plaintiffs as

absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and

consequently, the defendants are directed to deliver

possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

within a period of three months from today.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit

contending that the suit schedule properties were

originally owned by one Puttamma. Upon her death, the

properties devolved upon her daughter Kariyamma,

who is the mother of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and the wife

of plaintiff No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that

Kariyamma died about 17 years prior to the institution

of the suit. After her demise, plaintiff No.1 married the

second wife, Eramma. The plaintiffs alleged that

Eramma developed a hostile attitude towards plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3, who were minors at the relevant point of

time. Consequently, plaintiff No.1 entrusted the care

and custody of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 to one Sannakka,

wife of Baggajja of Yalagatta Gollarahatty, Challakere

Taluk, who is the maternal aunt of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3.

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

The plaintiffs further stated that being illiterate, they

did not take steps to get their names mutated in the

revenue records after the death of Kariyamma.

Nonetheless, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 asserted that they,

along with plaintiff No.1, continued in exclusive

possession of the suit lands.

4. The suit was filed alleging that in July 1995,

when the defendants attempted to get their names

mutated in the revenue records, the plaintiffs

discovered that the defendants were claiming ownership

based on a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1986.

Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 specifically contended that they

had never executed any such sale deed in favour of the

defendants and alleged that the document was

fabricated by the defendants in collusion with the

attesting witnesses and the scribe. They therefore

sought a declaration that the sale deed is null and void,

along with consequential relief of possession. The

plaintiffs further contended that they were minors on

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

the date of the purported sale and hence legally

incapable of executing any such conveyance.

5. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1

and 2, the alleged purchasers, entered appearance and

contested the suit. In their written statement, the

defendants denied the plaint averments in toto. They

contended that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, being the

daughters of Kariyamma, inherited the properties

exclusively and that plaintiff No.1, being only the

husband of the deceased, is not a Class-I heir and

therefore did not succeed to the suit properties. They

further asserted that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 voluntarily

executed the registered sale deed in their favour and

thus, after an unexplained delay of nine years, the

plaintiffs were not entitled to challenge a validly

executed transaction. On these premises, the

defendants claimed absolute title and lawful possession

and sought dismissal of the suit.

6. Both parties adduced oral and documentary

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

evidence in support of their respective claims. To prove

that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were minors on the date of

the alleged sale, the plaintiffs examined a Radiologist as

PW.3. The defendants, on the other hand, sought to

rebut the claim of minority and also counter the

allegation of forgery by obtaining the opinion of a

finger-print expert with respect to the signatures found

on the sale deed dated 17.09.1986, marked as Ex.D-

17.

7. The trial Court, while noting that the finger-

print expert's opinion indicated that the signatures on

Ex.D-17 tallied with those of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3,

nevertheless placed substantial reliance on the evidence

of PW.3 and the age certificate issued by him marked

as Ex.P-11. On this basis, the trial Court concluded that

plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were indeed minors on the date of

the transaction and therefore incapable of executing the

sale deed. The Court held the sale deed dated

17.09.1986 to be a concocted and void document,

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

answering Issue No.1 in the affirmative. The trial Court

further held that the defendants failed to establish that

the plaintiffs had received consideration of Rs.5,000/-

under the alleged sale. Additional Issue No.1 was also

answered in the affirmative, with the Court recording a

finding that the defendants forcibly dispossessed the

plaintiffs on 21.02.2001. Consequently, the suit was

decreed, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners and

directing restoration of possession.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before

the First Appellate Court.

9. The Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of

the evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial

Court. It upheld the conclusion that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3

were minors as on 17.09.1986 based on the age

certificate Ex.P-11 and the testimony of PW.3. The

Appellate Court reiterated that a minor is incompetent

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

to enter into a contract and therefore incapable of

alienating immovable property. It accordingly held that

the sale deed did not confer any title upon defendant

Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed the appeal.

10. It is these concurrent findings of the Courts

below that are under challenge at the instance of the

defendants in the present second appeal.

11. This Court, vide order dated 20.09.2010,

admitted the appeal on the following substantial

question of law:

"Whether the evidence on record was

sufficient to hold that the respondents herein

were minors as on the date of the execution

of the sale deed dated 17.09.1986, which

was disputed?"

12. This Court has recalled the judgment earlier

rendered on merits, upon noticing that, despite the

respondent having duly engaged counsel, the registry

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

had inadvertently failed to reflect the name of the

respondent's advocate in the cause-list. Consequently,

the respondent was not issued notice and was deprived

of an effective opportunity of hearing. In order to rectify

this procedural lapse and to uphold the principles of

natural justice, this Court found it necessary to recall

the judgment.

13. Pursuant to the recall, the matter was taken

up for fresh consideration and was heard at length. The

learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs advanced

detailed submissions and strenuously contended that

the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts

below are well-reasoned and do not call for interference

by this Court in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. It

was therefore urged that the appeal deserves to be

dismissed.

14. Heard learned counsel for defendant Nos.1

and 2 and counsel for plaintiffs.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

15. The plaintiffs' case, as pleaded, proceeds on

a narrow but determinative premise: that plaintiff Nos.2

and 3 were minors on 17.09.1986 and therefore lacked

the legal capacity to alienate the suit lands by executing

the registered sale deed dated 17.09.1986 (Ex.D-17).

The gist of the plaintiffs' claim is that Ex.D-17 is a

fabricated document and that the purported alienation

could not have been effected by persons who were, at

the relevant time, legally incompetent to contract. To

establish minority, the plaintiffs place primary reliance

upon the age certificate exhibited as Ex.P-11 and upon

the testimony of PW.3, who gave evidence as a

Radiologist. On close scrutiny of Ex.P-11, however, it is

apparent that the certificate does not record the date

on which plaintiff No.2 (or plaintiff No.3) was examined

by PW.3 nor does it indicate the method or particulars

of the examination by which the age was ascertained.

These lacunae in Ex.P-11 necessarily engage the

Court's attention because the evidentiary weight of a

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

medical age-certificate depends heavily upon (a) the

identity of the person examined, (b) the date and

circumstances of examination, and (c) the factual basis

on which the medical opinion as to age is founded. The

credibility and probative value of PW.3's testimony must

therefore be tested against his cross-examination, for it

is in the cross-examination that the Court can examine

whether the certificate was prepared

contemporaneously, whether proper records were kept,

and whether the methodology employed was capable of

yielding a reliable conclusion as to age. The relevant

portion of PW.3's cross-examination which goes

directly to these crucial points is accordingly relied upon

by the parties and will be considered by this Court in

determining the evidentiary worth of Ex.P-11.

"¤.¦.11 gÀ°è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀ̼À UÀAqÀ£À ºÉ¸g À ÁUÀ°Ã DPÉAiÀÄ Hj£À ºÉ¸g À ÁUÀ°Ã §gÉ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ¸Ànð¦üPÃÉ mï PÉÆlÖ vÁjÃRÄ §gÉ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. £À£Àß ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ¥Àvz Àæ ° À è AiÀiÁªÁåªÀ ªÀÄƼÉU¼À À PÀ-ë QgÀt vÉUz É É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄðAzÀ £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀåPÀÛ ¥Àr¹zÉ JA§ §UÉÎ §gÉ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. C®èzÉ J¦¥Éʹ¸ï PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎAiÀÄÆ ¥Àª æ iÀ Át ¥Àvz æÀ ° À è §gÉ¢®è. ¤.¦. 11 gÀ°è 'C¨ÉÆÃmï' ªÀÄvÀÄÛ '21' §gÉzÀ ¸Àܼz À ° À è 'NªÀgï

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

gÉÊnAUï' DVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ¸ÀASÉ 21 gÀ°è 2 JA§ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 'NªÀgï gÉÊnAUï' DVzÉ J£ÀߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀjÃQëùzÁUÀ ºÀ£ÄÀ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ ¥ÀPÀë 21 ªÀµð À DVvÀÄ.Û D ªÀÄÆ¼É PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ªÀµð À DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä ¸ÁzÀå«®è. ZÀªÀÄðzÀ ºÉÆgÀV£À ZÀºg À É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É¼ª À t À UÂ É EªÀÅUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄðAzÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀ£ ì ÀÄß CAzÁf£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉüÀ§ºÀÄzÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ¤RgÀªÁV ¸ÁzÀå«®è. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉý ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄwÛzÝÉ Ã£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤dªÀ®.è CzÉà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄät£ Ú À ºÉAqÀw avÀª Û ÄÀ ä JA§ÄªÀª¼ À £ À ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQëù ªÀAiÀĹì£À §UÉÎ ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä gÀf¸ÀÖg£ À è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. CzÀÄ ¥ÀÄl 216 gÀ°z À ° è ÀÄÝ CzÉà ¥ÀÄlzÀ°è PɼU À q À U É É ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀ̼À ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ §gÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. avÀª Û ÄÀ ä FPÉ CAzÁdÄ (C¨ÉÆ) 21 ªÀµð À CAvÀ §gÉAiÀįÁVzÀÄÝ ¤d. DzÀgÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì (C¨ÉÆ) 21 ªÀµð À CAvÀ §gÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. 'C¨ÉÆ' 21 ªÀµðÀ CAvÀ §gÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. avÀª Û ÀÄä¼À ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¥Àªæ ÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ ¥ÀqAÉ iÀįÁVzÉ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉý ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥Àª æ iÀ Át ¥ÀvæÀ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤dªÀ®.è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀ̼À ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 21 jAzÀ 24 gÀªg À U É É EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. CzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤dªÀ®.è "

16. Upon a meticulous examination of the cross-

examination of PW.3, this Court finds that both the

Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the

slender and unreliable evidence adduced by plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3 to demonstrate that they were minors at

the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of

defendant Nos.1 and 2. PW.3, the Radiologist, has

candidly admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.P-

11, the age certificate relied upon by the plaintiffs, does

not bear the date of examination. He has further

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

admitted that the certificate does not disclose which

specific bones were examined for the purpose of

determining the age of plaintiff No.2. More significantly,

he has also admitted, in unequivocal terms, that the

expression "about 21 years" appearing in Ex.P-11 is an

overwriting. He has further conceded that he is not in a

position to state when the bones of plaintiff No.2 had

united.

17. These admissions strike at the very root of

the credibility of Ex.P-11. When the evidence of PW.3 is

assessed in its entirety, it becomes evident that the

plaintiffs have failed to place any reliable or cogent

material to prove that they were minors on the date of

the purported alienation. Consequently, this Court is of

the considered view that the concurrent findings of both

the Courts below, holding that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3

were minors as on the date of execution of the sale

deed, suffer from serious perversity and are vitiated by

non-consideration of material admissions elicited in

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

cross-examination. The findings, therefore, cannot be

sustained.

18. It is well settled that while a Radiologist is

generally competent to estimate age by conducting a

bone ossification test, an assessment based on the

degree of fusion of bones through radiographic

examination, such tests have reliable probative value

primarily when conducted before an individual attains

the age of 18 years. After the age of 18, the elongation

of bones is substantially complete and ossification

approaches its final stage. At that point, variations

caused by individual biological characteristics, nutrition,

hereditary factors, and environmental influences render

the test significantly less reliable. Thus, although the

ossification test may offer a relevant indication, it

cannot be treated as a conclusive or determinative

piece of evidence for establishing age once the

individual has crossed adolescence.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

19. In this factual matrix, this Court is not

inclined to place reliance on the oral testimony of PW.3

or on the age certificate Ex.P-11 issued by him. If the

ossification test conducted after the age of 18 cannot be

regarded as fully reliable, the evidentiary value of Ex.P-

11 must necessarily be examined within the limited

framework accorded to expert opinions under Section

45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is well established that

expert opinion is merely advisory in nature and cannot,

on its own, form the sole basis for determining a crucial

fact unless supported by independent and credible

evidence. In this regard, reference may be made to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramdeo

Chauhan v. State of Assam (2000) 7 SCC 455,

wherein the Apex Court has clearly laid down the

parameters governing reliance on medical opinion for

age determination.

"The statement of the doctor is no more than opinion, the Court has to base its conclusions upon all the facts and

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

circumstances disclosed on examining of the physical features of the person whose age is in question. In this vast country with varied latitudes, heights, environment, vegetation and nutrition, the height and weight cannot be expected to be uniform."

20. In Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra,

(2006)1 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

categorically clarified that an ossification test conducted

by a medical officer falls within the ambit of expert

opinion and is intended merely to assist the Court. Such

expert opinion is advisory in nature and does not bind

the Court. Applying this principle to the present case, it

becomes evident that the age certificate issued by PW.3

cannot be treated as reliable evidence, particularly

because the certificate fails to disclose the date on

which plaintiff No.2 was examined. In the absence of

such a foundational detail, Ex.P-11 cannot be accorded

conclusive value for determining the age of plaintiff

No.2.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

21. Indian Courts, including the Hon'ble Apex

Court, have in Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh,

(2009) 6 SCC 681 and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of

Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 223, consistently observed that

an ossification test never yields an exact age of the

person examined. Radiological assessment leaves a

margin of error of nearly two years on either side of the

assessed age. Thus, the method is inherently

approximate and incapable of furnishing precise age

determination.

22. In a country like India, where documentary

proof of age may often be unavailable owing to a

variety of social and economic circumstances, Courts

may be compelled to consider medical evidence.

However, where the medical certificate itself does not

indicate the date of examination and where significant

deficiencies in the evidence of the expert stand exposed

in cross-examination, the Courts below ought to have

exercised greater caution before accepting such

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

evidence. In the present case, the concurrent findings

of both Courts that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were minors on

the date of alienation are patently erroneous, having

been rendered without due scrutiny of the infirmities in

PW.3's testimony. These findings suffer from grave

perversity and cannot be sustained.

23. Another vital aspect completely overlooked

by both Courts is the inadequacy of oral evidence

adduced by the plaintiffs. PW.1, whose deposition was

relied upon, has fallen short of establishing the

allegations in the plaint regarding minority of plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3. Plaintiff No.1--the father has not

prosecuted the suit, nor has he stepped into the witness

box to affirm the pleadings. More significantly, plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3, who have alleged serious acts of forgery

and fabrication against the defendants, have abstained

from entering the witness box to substantiate such

grave charges. Instead, they have prosecuted the suit

through a GPA holder, who is admittedly incompetent to

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

depose regarding matters within the personal

knowledge of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The GPA holder is

not a party to the sale deed dated 17.09.1986 (Ex.D-

17) and therefore cannot speak to the circumstances

surrounding its execution. These omissions strike at the

core of the plaintiffs' case. Both Courts ought to have

taken note of these glaring deficiencies and drawn an

adverse inference under Illustration (g) to Section 114

of the Evidence Act.

24. The next important question that arises is

whether the Courts below were justified in granting a

declaration of ownership in favour of the plaintiffs

despite the plaintiffs not seeking cancellation of the

registered sale deed dated 17.09.1986. Where plaintiffs

allege that a sale deed is forged, fabricated, or

executed without lawful authority, they are required to

specifically seek cancellation of the said document. In

the present case, the plaintiffs have furnished only

slender and unreliable evidence to claim that they were

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

minors. On the other hand, the finger-print expert's

opinion, which has been placed on record by the

defendants, clearly indicates that the disputed

signatures on Ex.D-17 match the specimen signatures

of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Once such evidence exists, the

plaintiffs, who are allegedly parties to the document,

were required in law to seek the relief of cancellation of

the sale deed. Without such a prayer, the title flowing

from the registered document remains intact.

25. It is well settled that while a Court may

declare an instrument void even without a specific

prayer for cancellation, such a course is permissible

only when the document is inherently void ab initio.

However, where the document is merely voidable at the

instance of a party particularly where allegations of

forgery or incapacity are raised,the party aggrieved

must necessarily seek a prayer for cancellation. The

nature of the relief sought also has a direct bearing on

the question of limitation. In the present case, the

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

evidence indicates that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were

signatories to the sale deed, and hence, any challenge

to the document required an explicit plea for

cancellation. Both Courts failed to appreciate this legal

distinction and erred in granting a mere declaration of

title without addressing the validity of the registered

sale deed.

26. Although it is well established that Courts, in

appropriate cases, may grant a declaration of invalidity

even in the absence of a prayer for cancellation, the

present case does not fall within such a category. Given

that the finger-print expert's report supports the

defendants and that the plaintiffs have failed to bring

even minimally acceptable evidence to establish

minority at the time of execution, the suit as framed

seeking only declaration and possession was not

maintainable. The plaintiffs were bound to challenge

Ex.D-17 directly, and failure to do so is fatal to their

case.

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the

substantial question of law framed by this Court must

be answered in the 'negative' and against the

plaintiffs. The material on record is wholly insufficient to

establish that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were minors as on

17.09.1986. On the contrary, the documentary and

expert evidence produced by the defendants supports

the execution of the sale deed. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3

have not participated in the proceedings by entering the

witness box; therefore, an adverse inference under

Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act necessarily arises

against them. Consequently, the concurrent findings of

the Courts below are unsustainable in law. Having

answered the substantial question of law against the

plaintiffs, this Court holds that the suit instituted by

plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 is liable to be dismissed.

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48252

HC-KAR

28. For the foregoing reasons, the following

order is passed:

ORDER

(i) The second appeal is hereby allowed;

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 07.12.2009

passed in R.A.No.16/2006 by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Chitradurga,

confirming the judgment and decree dated

28.02.2006 passed in O.S.No.132/1995 by the

learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),

Chitradurga, are set aside. Consequently, the

suit stands dismissed;

(iii) All pending interlocutory applications, if any,

stand disposed of as having become infructuous.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ