Karnataka High Court
Shri Ganapath Shattu Mayanagouda vs Shri Ramachandra Yallappa Mayanagouda on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
RSA No. 624 of 2008
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.624 OF 2008 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. GANAPATH SHATTU MAYANAGOUDA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A. SRI. ANUSAYA
W/O. GANAPAT PATIL MAYANGOUDA,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HOUSE NO.202,
HANDIGANUR VILLAGE-591143,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
1B. MRS. MANGALA HINDURAO DHAMANE
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O. HOUSE NO.204,
RAJA HOUSING SOCIETY,
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
SAKHARAM COMPLEX,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date: KOPAR ROAD, DOMBIVALI,
2025.11.28
10:40:03 THANE-421202, MAHARASHTRA.
+0530
1C. MR. SHASHIKANT
S/O. GANAPAT PATIL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O. HOUSE NO. C 104,
CHANDRESH NIKETAN,
LODHA COMPLEX,
GOLDEN NEST, MIRA ROAD EAST,
THANE-401107, MAHARASHTRA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
RSA No. 624 of 2008
HC-KAR
1D. MR. RAJESH S/O. GANAPAT PATIL,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O. HOUSE NO.104, AMBER DEV BUILDING,
NANDIVALI ROAD, OPP. LAXMIKANT HOTEL,
SAMARTH NAGAR, DOMBIVALI EAST,
KALIAN-421204, MAHARASHTRA,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAMACHANDRA YALLAPPA MAYANAGOUDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANDIGANUR,
TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. ANNAPPA YALLAPPA MAYANAGOUDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANDIGANUR,
TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.V. ITAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2008 IN
REGULAR APPEAL NO.41/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) BELAGAVI, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 07.01.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.751/2002 ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) BELAGAVI AT
BELAGAVI AND DISMISSING THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE
APPELLANT AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COST THROUGH
OUT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
RSA No. 624 of 2008
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI )
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The plaintiff, who suffered the reversal of the
judgment of the Trial Court at the hands of the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.41/2005 is before this Court in appeal.
3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of
this appeal may be summarized as below:
a) The suit property happens to be Sy.No.3/1
measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Handiganoor Village. The said
property was purchased under a sale deed dated 18.02.1963 by
father of the plaintiff. It was contented that he is in possession
and enjoyment of the property since the date of the sale deed
and after the demise of his father, the property has devolved
upon the plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
b) The defendants are the relatives of the plaintiff and
they are the owners of Sy.No.3/2, adjoining the suit property on
the eastern side.
c) The plaintiff alleged that the defendants without any
right, title or interest have illegally encroached and occupied a
portion of 5 ft east-west and 25 ft north-south in 1 acre 22
guntas of land belonging to the plaintiff during October 2002. It
was contented that the plaintiff and his family members resisted
the illegal acts, but they did not heed to the same. Hence, the
plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit seeking a decree
declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule
property shown in the hand sketch, which is part of Sy.No.3/1
and consequential relief that the defendants be directed to
remove any encroachment in the property of the plaintiff and
demolish the illegal constructions made by them.
d) On service of summons, the defendants appeared
and filed their written statement. They contended that they were
owners of Sy.No.3/2 to the extent of 21 guntas and it was
granted to them by the Land Tribunal. They contended that when
the plaintiff admits that the defendants are the owners of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
Sy.No.3/2 measuring 21 guntas and their names were entered in
the revenue records, there is no reason to hold that the
defendants are not the owners to the extent of 21 guntas. It is
contented that the plaintiff has not challenged the extent of the
land held by the defendants, but on the contrary admitted the
case of the defendants and therefore, the suit is not
maintainable.
4. On the above contentions, the Trial Court framed the
issues and additional issue as below:
"ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he is
the owner of Suit Property?
2. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that
the Defendants illegally put up permanent
structure in the Suit Property?
3. Whether the Defendant No.2 proves that
he constructed farm house in 1998 June
and the Plaintiff did not raise objections?
4. Is the Plaintiff entitled for the reliefs
claimed?
5. What Order or decree?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
ADDL. ISSUES:
1. Whether Plaintiff proves that, the
defendant encroached an area of 5' X 25′
out of R.S. No. 3/1?"
2. Whether the defendant proves that this
suit is barred by limitation?
5. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Ex.P.1 to 9
were marked and the defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and
Ex.D.1 to 7 were marked.
6. After hearing arguments, the Trial Court answered
Issue No. 1 to 4 and Additional Issue No. 1 in the affirmative and
Additional Issue No. 2 in the negative and decreed the suit as
prayed by the plaintiff. It also awarded compensation of
₹10,000/- to the plaintiff from the defendants. Being aggrieved,
the defendants approached the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.41/2005 and after hearing both the sides the First
Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff is
before this court in appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
7. At the time admitting this appeal, the following
substantial question of law was framed by this court:
"Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred
in law in not properly considering the legal
effect of the registered sale deed -Ex.P4?"
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the father of the plaintiff had purchased 1 acre 22
guntas from the erstwhile owners of the property, which totally
measured 2 acres comprising of Sy.No.3. She submits that the
defendants claimed that they had approached the Land Tribunal
as tenants under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 and they were granted the occupancy rights in respect
of 21 guntas. It is submitted that obviously such order of the
grant by the Land Tribunal is subsequent to 1974. It is submitted
that the sale deed of the father of the plaintiff, on which the
plaintiff is relying is of the year 1963. Therefore, the defendants
could only claim rights in respect of about 18 guntas, which was
left in Sy.No.3, when the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 were amended and came into effect in the
year 1974. Therefore, it is contended that Ex.P.4 the sale deed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
gains pivotal importance. Hence she submits that the First
Appellate Court erred in holding that the plaintiff had not proved
that there was an encroachment by the defendants.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the Trial Court has rightly considered
the revenue entry pertaining to the suit survey number and has
dealt with the matter. He contends that subsequent to the
alleged sale deed of the father of the plaintiff in the year 1963,
there was measurement of the property and the revenue as well
as survey authorities had prepared Form No.12 and the said
Form No.12 as per Ex.D.2 mentioned that the property which
was in possession of the plaintiff was only 1 acre 19 guntas but
not 1 acre 22 guntas as mentioned in the sale deed. Accordingly,
the revenue entries were changed after the inquiry and
thereafter, the defendants had filed the Form No.7 before the
Land Tribunal, which had granted the occupancy rights. Hence,
he submits that no interference is required in the impugned
judgment.
10. A careful perusal of the records which are available
would show that though the sale deed at Ex.P.4 mentioned that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
an area measuring 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.3, which is
described as Sy.No.3/1A was sold to the father of the plaintiff,
the subsequent events which are borne out of the report show
that there was a Form No.12 prepared by the revenue authorities
and as per Ex.D.2, the plaintiff was found to be in possession of
1 acre 19 guntas only. This aspect is not explained by the
plaintiff by any cogent evidence.
11. It is pertinent to note that during pendency of the
first appeal, it was submitted that an appeal against Form No.12
had been filed before the Assistant Commissioner. The outcome
of the said appeal is not known. If at all Form No.12 was
prepared without holding an enquiry and if the plaintiff is
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is at liberty to take suitable
available remedy under the extant laws. It is also relevant to
note that when there is a revenue record which show that while
holding an enquiry, Form No.12 was prepared, obviously, there
may be some other records showing the K.J.P. (Kami Jast Patrak)
which was the basic document to prepare Form No.12.
Therefore, it is not known for what reason and how the form
No.12 as per Ex.D.2 was prepared.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
12. Secondly, it is relevant to note that the defendants
though they contended that the Tribunal had granted them
occupancy rights in respect of 22 guntas, such evidence was not
placed before the Trial Court. Either the Form No.7 filed by the
defendants and the order of the Land Tribunal and also the Form
No.10 granting the occupancy rights were not at all produced by
the defendants. If the defendants are claiming 22 guntas,
obviously they should be in a position to substantiate the same
by the order of the Land Tribunal and Form No.10 issued to them
under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reform Act.
13. So far as the present appeal is concerned, it is
necessary to note that though initially in the year 1963 the
father of the plaintiff had purchased 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.3,
subsequently there have been changes in the revenue records
and the revenue records indicate that the extent of the land held
by the plaintiff is only 1 acre 19 guntas. If that is so, the hand
sketch map of the plaintiff, where the encroachment is shown as
A, B, C and D do not explain the survey map produced at Ex.P.3.
Under these circumstances, this Court do not find any reason to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16425
HC-KAR
interfere with the judgment of the First Appellate Court in
dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff.
14. The First Appellate Court observes that the primary
burden of proving the case is on the plaintiff and the plaintiff has
failed to establish that it was not 1 acre 19 guntas but it was 1
acre 22 guntas which he was in possession. Therefore, the First
Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
15. Under these circumstances, the conclusions of the
First Appellate Court cannot be interfered when it has dismissed
the suit. The dismissal of the suit by the First Appellate Court
and the appeal by this Court would not preclude the plaintiff from
pursuing any remedy available under the provisions of the extant
laws in ascertaining how 1 acre 22 guntas mentioned in Ex.P.4
was reduced to 1 acre 19 guntas in the revenue records. With
this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
YAN-para 1 to 8
SSP - para 9 till end.
CT:PA
