Karnataka High Court
Sri S B Javaregowda vs Smt Rathnamma on 6 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
RSA No. 650 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S B JAVAREGOWDA
SON OF LATE BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,
HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.
2. SMT.PUTTAMMA,
WIFE OF BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,
HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI,
Digitally signed BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
by JUANITA MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SRI.KENCHEGOWDA,
KARNATAKA SON OF LATE ANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,
HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
RSA No. 650 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT RATHNAMMA
WIFE OF LATE B.RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/A VODERAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.
2. SMT.RANI,
DAUGHTER OF LATE B.RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/A VODERAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.
3. SMT.RATHNAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE.KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,
HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102
4. SRI. UDESHA,
SON OF LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,
HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102
5. SRI. YOGESHA,
SON OF LATE KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/A SALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
RSA No. 650 of 2025
HC-KAR
HAMLET OF JOGANAHALLI,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -571 102.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC PRAYING
THIS HON'BLE COURT TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
O.S.NO.284/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL LEARNED
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC @ PERIYAPATNA AND ALSO IN
R.A.NO.24/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SR. CIVIL
JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & DECREE DT.04.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.284/2009 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DT.01.02.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2023 PASSED BY THE
SR. CIVIL JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA 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
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants.
2. This matter is listed for admission and the
appeal is filed against the concurrent findings.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the trial court, while seeking the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction, it is pleaded that
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the
children of late B.Rajanna, S/o late Basappa. The
Government has granted the land bearing Survey
No.48/II, measuring an extent of 2 acres 22 guntas,
which is more fully described in the schedule. After
granting the said land, the husband of the plaintiff No.1
has become the owner and was in possession of the same.
Thereafter, the Survey Department has carried out survey
settlement and assigned new Survey No.48/3 to the said
land. Katha and revenue entries have been changed in the
name of the husband of plaintiff No.1. The husband of the
plaintiff No.1 died about 16 years prior to filing the suit
leaving behind the plaintiffs as successors to his estate.
After the death of the husband of plaintiff No.1, the
plaintiffs have continued to be in possession of the suit
schedule property. When fact being so, the defendant
Nos.1 to 4 started interfering with possession of the
plaintiffs' suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs
obtained the RTCs and other documents and then they
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
came to know that the defendant No.3 got her name
entered in RTC with the active collusion of the revenue
officials pertaining to the suit property under the guise of
M.R.No.4/85-86 by bracketing the name of the husband of
the plaintiff No.1. Further plaintiffs came to know that
defendants No.1 and 2 got the RTC entries under MR
No.25/01-02 to the suit schedule property behind the back
of the plaintiff with the active collusion of the revenue
officials. It is learnt that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have
colluded with each other and created the document
making hectic efforts to interfere with their possession and
when such factual aspects came to the knowledge of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed a revenue appeal in
R.A.No.76/2006-07 before the Assistant Commissioner for
rectification of the RTC in respect of the suit schedule
property. The Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the
said R.A. on 13.07.2009 by directing the plaintiffs to
approach the competent civil court for the relief of
declaration of their title over the suit property and hence
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
immediately filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration
and injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons,
defendants appeared and filed written statement
contending that suit is barred by limitation and also
contend that defendant No.4 has purchased the suit
schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 3 under
registered sale deed dated 23.03.2006 and also took the
specific defence that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have purchased
suit schedule property from late B.Rajanna under
unregistered sale deed dated 11.01.1986 and also their
specific case that they have perfected the title by adverse
possession. The trial court having considered the pleadings
of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to
lead evidence. The plaintiff No.3 got examined as PW1 and
got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to P10. On the other
hand, defendant examined one witness as DW1 and also
examined two witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and got marked
50 documents as Exs.D1 to D50. The trial court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence,
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
appreciated the material and answered issue Nos.1, 2 and
3 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that suit is not
barred by limitation and immediately after the dismissal of
the appeal they have approached the court within 4 to 5
months of dismissal of the appeal and also comes to the
conclusion that the additional issue No.1 and 2 doesn't
arise for consideration and additional issue No.3 is
answered as negative in coming to the conclusion that
they have not perfected the title over the suit schedule
properties. In detail, the trial court from paragraph Nos.19
to 26, discussed with regard to the case of the plaintiff as
well as defendants and decreed the suit granting the relief
of declaration and permanent injunction. Being aggrieved
by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in
R.A.No.24/2023 and appellate court also having
considered the grounds which have been urged in the
appeal memo, formulated the point whether the judgment
and decree of the trial court is based on the facts and law
applicable and whether it requires interference. On
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
reassessing both oral and documentary evidence comes to
the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff is supported by
both oral and documentary evidence available on record
and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Being
aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present second
appeal is filed before this Court.
4. The main contention of the counsel appearing
for the appellants is that both the courts committed an
error in not considering the case of the defendants and
unregistered document was executed long back by the
original grantee and also the counsel would vehemently
contend that both trial court and appellate court
committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs are
entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent
injunction and committed an error and hence requires
interference of this Court to admit and frame substantial
questions of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
5. Having heard the appellants' counsel and the
main contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants is that there was an unregistered sale deed
executed by late B.Rajanna, who is the husband and
father of the plaintiffs, on 10.01.1986 and also defendant
Nos.1 to 3 have sold the property in favour of defendant
No.4, vide sale deed dated 23.03.2006 and also the other
alternative defence which was taken is that there is
adverse possession. The trial court while considering the
case of the plaintiffs and defendants, in detail discussed
from paragraph No.19 onwards with regard to the very
document as unregistered document and the same is not
admissible in the eye of law as well as the same will not
confer any right and once the unregistered document
doesn't confer any title, question of executing the sale
deed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant
No.4 also doesn't arise and has even taken note of the
revenue entries. The revenue entries are also based on
only the statement and not based on the basis of earlier
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
unregistered sale deed and also on any material on record
and apart from that when the appellant counsel
vehemently argues before the court that appellants are in
possession of the property, but the very witness who has
been examined before the trial court on behalf of the
defendants i.e. DW3 categorically admits that after the
death of B.Rajanna, his children are cultivating the
property and also his evidence is only on preparation of
the information given by the defendant No.2 i.e., chief
evidence. When such evidence is available before the court
and the same is rightly considered by the trial court from
paragraph Nos.19 to 26 with regard to the claim is
concerned and in their favour and not accepted the case of
the defendants. The first appellate court also while
reconsidering the material on record in keeping the
grounds which have been urged in paragraph No.15 and
16, in detail taken note of the same and also the
reasoning of the trial court with regard to the claim made
by the plaintiff that property was granted in favour of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
husband and father of the plaintiffs and thereafter also
they have been in continued the possession and when the
revenue entries comes to the notice of the plaintiff they
immediately filed the appeal and the appeal was also
dismissed, giving a liberty to the parties to approach the
Civil Court for declaration of their title and accordingly the
suit is filed for declaration based on the grant order as well
as the oral and documentary evidence available on record
and the case of the defendant that there was an
unregistered sale deed was not accepted and subsequent
document of sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 also
does not confer any title in favour of defendant No.4 and
when such reasoned order has been passed and this Court
can admit the second appeal only when there is a
perversity in the finding of the trial court as well as the
appellate court or otherwise question of admitting the
same doesn't arise. With regard to the question of law
concerned, when the land was granted originally in favour
of the grantee and the document was the unregistered
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44908
HC-KAR
document and the same doesn't convey any right in favour
of any of the persons in view of Section 17 of the
Registration Act and question of law also taken note of by
the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Hence, I
do not find any ground to admit and frame substantial
question of law.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following;
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
