Karnataka High Court
H E Sathish vs Byresh on 7 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
RSA No. 2124 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2124 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. H E SATHISH
S/O H ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST AND
ARECANUT MERCHANT
R/O HULLUR
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501
2. B S DINESH
S/O B K SHIVAMURTHAPPA
Digitally signed OCC AGRICULTRIST AND
by DEVIKA M ARECANUT MERCHANT
Location: HIGH R/O B V K S LAYOUT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHITRADURGA - 577501
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KANTHARAJAPPA M G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BYRESH
S/O B MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
RSA No. 2124 of 2021
HC-KAR
OCC. EXCISE POLICE
R/O HULLUR
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.05.2021
PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA 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
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of both the Courts.
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 plaintiffs
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of
declaration and injunction is that suit schedule property
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
originally belonged to Hullur Village Panchayath. But one
Byrappa was in possession of the suit schedule property
for long period and perfected his title and hence, he is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without
any hindrance. After his death, his legal heir
Hanumanthappa was in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property. After the death of said
Hanumanthappa, his wife and son were in possession and
enjoyment of the same and katha of the suit schedule
property was also transferred to their names jointly. For
their family necessity, they sold the property on
04.04.2009 for valuable sale consideration in favour of the
plaintiffs and from the date of purchase, the plaintiffs are
in possession of the property and hence, they are the
absolute owners and hence, the Court has to grant the
relief of declaration and injunction in favour of the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also pleaded in the plaint that
defendant encroached the suit schedule property to an
extent of east-west 90 feet and north-south 11 feet
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
towards the northern side of the suit schedule property
which is shown in the rough sketch as A, B, C, D, E.
Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
mandatory injunction in respect of the encroached portion
as well as declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The defendant appeared and filed the written
statement contending that the suit itself is not
maintainable.
5. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings
of the parties, allowed the parties to lead evidence. In
order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, they examined
four witness as PW1 to PW4 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P1 to P24. On the other hand, the
defendant examined the witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and
got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D6. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence
available on record comes to the conclusion that in order
to prove the factum of title is concerned, except producing
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
the sale deed at Ex.P2, not placed any documentary proof
with regard to the title of the vendor of the plaintiffs. Apart
from that when the plaintiffs relies upon the document of
Ex.P1 - DCB register extracts, the same is of the year
2012-13 and not the previous document of the sale deed
of the plaintiffs. Thus, the pleading and evidence not
supports the case of the plaintiffs. Hence, answered all the
Issues as negative and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
he Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.1/2019.
The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds
which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated
the Points. The First Appellate Court having reassessed
both the oral and documentary evidence on record comes
to the conclusion that the defendant has disputed the title
over the suit schedule property particularly the vendor of
the plaintiffs. When such being the case, the burden is on
the plaintiffs to establish the right and title of their vendor
over the suit schedule property, but the plaintiffs have not
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
produced any material to establish that their vendor was
having alienable right or title to dispose of the suit
property and also comes to the conclusion that when the
plaintiffs fail to place it any material on record and in the
absence of relevant materials, it cannot be accepted that
the plaintiffs' vendor was having an alienable right over
the suit schedule property and hence, confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal.
Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the
Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this
Court.
7. The main contention of the counsel appearing
for the appellants before this Court is that in Ex.P1 though
it is mentioned as of the year 2012-13 but below, it is
mentioned as 2009 and both the Courts committed an
error in considering Ex.P1. The counsel also vehemently
contend that Ex.P24 is very clear that subsequent to the
purchase of the property, the same was transferred in
favour of the plaintiffs and ought to have taken note of
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
those documents but both the Courts disbelieved those
documents hence, both the Courts are not right in law in
recording the finding that Ex.D1 to D6 has been proved
though there is no basis for the entries found in the above
said documents. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal
and frame substantive question of law.
8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that very pleading
in paragraph 3 of the plaint is very clear that property
originally belongs to Hullur Village Panchayath and no
document is placed before the Court to show that the
property was granted in favour of vendor of the plaintiffs
but only their contention is that they have perfected the
title by long possession and even not filed any suit against
the Panchayat and only based on the sale deed at Ex.P2,
they claim the absolute ownership over the suit schedule
property and the said fact was taken note of by the Trial
court as well as the First Appellate Court and rightly
dismissed the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also perused of the material on
record particularly the averments made in paragraph 3 of
the plaint wherein the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that
the property belongs to the Hullur Village Panchayath. In
order to substantiate that the Hullur Panchayat had
allotted the property either to the vendor of the plaintiffs
or to their family members, nothing is placed on record
except pleading that they were in long possession and
mainly relies upon Ex.P1. The counsel for the appellants
would vehemently contend that in Ex.P1, mistakenly it is
mentioned as 2012-13 and the said document is prior to
the sale of the property in favour of the appellants. The
said contention cannot be accepted since, the document
clearly discloses that the same is of the year 2012-2013.
Apart from that document of Ex.P1 will not create any
right in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs unless any
grant or any document executed by the Village Panchayath
in favour of the vendor. The specific case of the plaintiffs
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
that originally, the property was belongs to the Hullur
Panchayat. In order to substantiate that Hullur Panchayat
allotted or granted the property in favour of the vendor or
the plaintiffs or to the family members of the vendor,
nothing is placed on record. The Trial Court has taken note
of the material placed on record particularly, while
considering Issue No.1 whether the plaintiffs are entitled
for the relief of declaration and comes to the conclusion
that Ex.P2 and P3 not substantiate the title of the plaintiffs
since the very plaintiffs' vendor was not having any title.
Apart from that First Appellate Court also having
considered the case of the plaintiffs in paragraph 24
comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs have not produced
any material to establish that their vendor was having
alienable right or title to dispose of the suit schedule
property in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, in the absence
of any documentary proof with regard to the title of the
vendor of the plaintiffs, the question of granting the relief
of declaration and consequential relief of injunction does
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45209
HC-KAR
not arise. Thus, there is no ground to admit the appeal to
frame substantive question of law.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
