Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju S/O K Rangaiah Since Dead By His ... vs T Ramalingaiah S/O T Ramaiah Since ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
RSA No. 471 of 2009
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARAJU
S/O K. RANGAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
a. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED 50 YEARS.
b. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
c. MUDDAMMA
D/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
Digitally signed d. KAMARAJA
by NANDINI M S/O LATE ANGARAJU
S
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. BOMMAIAH
S/O K. RANAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
3. RANGASHAMAIAH
S/O K RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
4. DADAPPA
S/O K. RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
RSA No. 471 of 2009
HC-KAR
5. SIDDAPPA
S/O K RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
6. EARAMMA
W/O K RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 85 YERS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THEETHA VILLAGE
KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE
TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G. MUNISWAMAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. T. RAMALINGAIAH
S/O T. RAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
a. GOWRAMMA
W/JO LATE T RAMALINGAIAH
(SINCE DECEASED AND
OTHER REPONDENTS ARE THE LRS.)
T R RAMESH (R-2)
c. T.V. KANTHARAJU
S/O LATE RAMA LINGAIAH
PROPREITOR, RAGHAVENDR
SWEETS, MUTTAIAH COMPLEX
OPP. TO NAVARANG THEATRE
MAHAKAVI KUVEMPU ROAD
I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 10.
d. T.R. SURESH
S/O LATE T RAMALINGIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT THEETHA VILLAGE
KOLALA HOBLI, KORATEGERE
TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 5723 129.
e. SMT. PREMA
W/O P.M. SADANANDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
RSA No. 471 of 2009
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.838
17 F MIAN, NEAR SHAMARAO
VITTAL BANK V BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.
f. SMT. PUSHPA
W/O B RLINGAPPA
AGED ABOOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1768/21
22ND CROSS, MRCR LAYOUT
GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE - 40.
2. T.R. RAMESH
S/O T RAMALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT THEETHA VILLAGE
KOLALA HOBLI, KORATBGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129.
3. DR. T.R. RANGASWAMY
S/O T. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
RESIDING AT AT THEETHA VILLAGE
KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R1(b);
SRI A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV., FOR R-1(e), R-1(g) & R-2)
RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT &
DECREE DATED09.01.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.264/2004 ON THE
FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COAURT, I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED24.09.1998
PASSED IN OS.NO.240/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR.
DN.)& JMFC, KORATAGERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
RSA No. 471 of 2009
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is
filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree
dated 09.01.2009 passed in RA No.264/2004 by the Court of
Fast Track - I, Tumakuru.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. OS No.105/1986 was filed by respondent No.1 herein
before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Madhugiri praying to
declare his title over the suit schedule properties and also for a
decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from
interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule properties. The said suit was subsequently
transferred to the jurisdictional Civil Court at Koratagere and
numbered as OS No.240/1989. In the said suit, defendant No.2
had entered appearance and filed written statement opposing
the prayer made in the suit. Based on the rival pleadings of the
parties, the Trial Court had framed as many as seven issues in
OS No.240/1989. On behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses
were examined before the Trial Court as PW1 to PW3 and 21
documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to P21. On behalf of the
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
defendants, five witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW5 and
07 documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court
after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by
judgment and decree dated 24.09.1998 partly decreed the said
suit and declared that the plaintiffs are owners in lawful
possession of the entire extent of Sy.No.67 and in respect of
the land measuring 1 acre 20 gutnas in Sy.No.64 and also
granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining
defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid lands. Aggrieved by
the said judgment and decree dated 24.09.1998, plaintiffs had
filed RA No.264/2004 before the jurisdictional Court at
Tumakuru and vide impugned judgment and decree dated
09.01.2009, RA No.264/2004 was allowed and the suit was
decreed in its entirety. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant
Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court.
4. This Court has admitted this RSA on 04.09.2015 to
consider the following substantial questions of law that arise for
consideration in this appeal:-
"1) Whether the judgment and decree of the
First Appellate Court is perverse in decreeing the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
of the plaintiff to the full extent while wrongly
reversing the decree of the Trial Court which granted
the decree only to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas?
2) Whether the First Appellate Court failed
to consider the evidence of the defendants that they
are in possession of 15 guntas of the suit schedule
property?"
5. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds
urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that defendants
have no grievance against the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has erred in decreeing the
suit in its entirety. The suit schedule consists of two items of
properties. The dispute is only with regard to item No.1
property bearing Sy.No.64. In the said property, the extent of
land available is only 1 acre 20 guntas and not 1 acre 36
guntas. Therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in partly
decreeing the suit. He submits that the appellants are in
possession of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64 out of 1 acre 36
guntas which is the total extent of the said land. He,
accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents/plaintiffs has argued in support of the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. He
submits that insofar as item No.2 of the suit schedule
properties is concerned, there is no dispute. In respect of item
No.1 of the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.64 is
concerned, under Ex.P1 Sale Deed dated 25.01.1959 which is
the title deed of the said property, plaintiff No.1 has purchased
the entire extent of 1 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No.64. The
boundaries of the said property has been clearly mentioned in
the title deed at Ex.P1. It is trite that whenever there is
discrepancy with regard to the measurement of the land, the
boundaries of the property would prevail. Therefore, the First
Appellate Court was fully justified in allowing the Regular
Appeal and decreeing the suit in its entirety. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.2 is the son
of plaintiff No.1 and they are the owners in possession of the
suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, item No.1
in suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.64 has been
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
purchased by the plaintiff No.1 under registered Sale Deed
dated 25.01.1959 (Ex.P1) and Sale Deed dated 22.03.1965
(Ex.P2) for valid sale consideration and they claim ownership
and possession over the said property under the aforesaid two
documents. Insofar as item No.2 of the suit schedule properties
bearing Sy.No.67 is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiffs
that the said property is their ancestral property which has
come to their share in the family arrangements. Plaintiffs have
alleged that defendants who have no right and title over the
suit schedule properties have been trying to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties by the plaintiffs. Defendants have filed written
statement opposing the suit claim and have contended that
they are the owners in possession of the land bearing
Sy.No.66. They have stated that soap nut bushes does not
exist in land bearing Sy.No.64 and it exists in land bearing
Sy.No.66 belonging to the defendants. They have disputed the
suit sketch. After the issues were framed in the suit,
defendants had filed IA No.13 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC
with a prayer to amend their original written statement and
permit them to raise the plea that they are in adverse
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
possession of the land bearing Sy.No.64 measuring 16 guntas.
IA No.13 was rejected by the Trial Court and as against the
said order, defendants had filed a Civil Revision Petition before
this Court in CRP No.3480/1994, which was also dismissed on
17.11.1994 and thereby pleading made by defendant Nos.1 to
6 that they are in possession of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64
which is adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs, was not
permitted.
8. The plaintiffs to prove their title in respect of the suit
schedule properties have produced the original Sale Deeds
under which the property bearing Sy.No.64 has been
purchased. Ex.P1 is the Sale Deed dated 25.01.1959 and in the
said Deed, there is a specific mention about the sale of the suit
schedule property bearing Sy.No.64 totally measuring 1 acre
36 guntas in favour of plaintiff No.1 for a valid consideration.
The property purchased under Ex.P1 has been described by
mentioning the boundaries of the property. Ex.P2 is a
document virtually confirming the sale made under Sale Deed -
Ex.P1 but the Trial Court after referring to the aforesaid two
Deeds has observed that the extent of land purchased in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
Sy.No.64 by plaintiff No.1 is uncertain and accordingly, has
proceeded to calculate the extent by taking into consideration
the measurements of the boundaries given in the Sale Deed.
This exercise has led to a confusion and the Trial Court has
accordingly recorded a finding based on the measurements that
plaintiffs are in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas out of 1 acre 36
gutnas in Sy.No.64. As stated earlier, insofar as the land
bearing Sy.No.67 is concerned, there is no dispute that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the entire extent of the land in
the said property. The Appellate Court having appreciated this
aspect of the matter has set-aside the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court insofar as it restricted the relief to the
plaintiffs in Sy.No.64 only to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas,
though the prayer was in respect of the entire extent of 1 acre
36 guntas, which was purchased by plaintiff No.1 under the
registered Sale Deeds at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
9. It is trite that whenever there is a discrepancy with
regard to the measurement of the property, the boundaries of
the property would prevail. In property disputes, boundaries
generally prevail over measurements because specific and fixed
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
boundaries are considered more reliable to indicate the correct
extent of the property. When the boundaries are clearly defined
and when there is no ambiguity with regard to the boundaries,
the boundaries are required to be relied for the purpose of
identifying the property and discrepancy in the measurement
would be secondary.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhaga and
Others vs. Shobha and Others - (2006) 5 SCC 466, in
paragraph No.6, has observed as follows:-
"6. The High Court has also upheld the title claimed by the
plaintiff over Plot No. 1301/1 Ba. Once we accept the
identification made by the Commissioner as was done by the
first appellate court, it is clear that the plaintiff has the right to
have the disputed construction removed and the well filled up.
That a property can be identified either by boundary or by any
other specific description is well established. Here the attempt
had been to identify the suit property with reference to the
boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property
with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any
discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail. There
was no occasion to spin a theory that it was necessary in this
suit to survey all the adjacent lands to find out whether an
encroachment was made in the land belonging to the plaintiff.
In this situation, we are satisfied that the judgment and decree
of the High Court calls for interference. We are also satisfied
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
that the lower appellate court was justified in affirming the
decree granted in favour of the plaintiff on the pleadings and
the evidence in the case."
11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Krishnappa vs. Ramegowda - RSA Nos.1498 and 1497 of
2005, disposed off on 29.02.2016, in paragraph No.22 has
observed as follows:-
"22. In the case of LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SHASTRY
v. MANGESHA DEVARU (ILR 1988 KAR 554), this
court has reiterated that the boundaries mentioned in the
sale deed would be decisive in identifying the property
and the actual extent of land. It is also held that the
boundaries prevail over extent of land. In the case of
B.K.A.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY .v. GOVERNMENT
OF PALESTINE & OTHERS reported in 1948 PC 207, it
is held as follows:
'In construing a grant of land, description by fixed
boundaries is to be preferred to a conflicting
description by area. The statement as to area is to
be rejected as falsa demonstration.'
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
The said decision is relied by the Madras High Court in the
case of SIVISESHAMUTHU .v. BALAKRISHNA reported
in AIR 1963 Madras 147 wherein it is held as follows:
'Where the property sold is part of a definite survey
number and in the sale deed the exact boundaries
of the part sold are given and the area mentioned
is only approximate, the description by boundaries
should prevail in ascertaining the actual property
sold under the document.'"
12. It is relevant to note here that the defendants have not
made any claim in their original written statement in respect of
the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.Nos.64 and 67 and on
the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendants that
they are owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.66 in
which they have grown Honge trees and coconut trees.
Subsequently, application in IA No.13 was filed by defendants
under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend their original written
statement and to permit them to raise the plea of adverse
possession in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64 measuring 16
guntas. The said prayer was rejected by the Trial Court and the
said order has been upheld by this Court in CRP No.3480/1994.
In effect, by making a plea of adverse possession in respect of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
land measuring 16 guntas in Sy.No.64, defendants virtually
have admitted the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the said
land, which actually is the extent of land which is in dispute.
Sofaras the decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of the
land bearing Sy.No.64 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas is
concerned, defendants had not even filed an appeal and the
dispute in the first appeal was only with regard to the aforesaid
extent of 16 guntas in Sy.No.64 which is now held by the
Appellate Court to be the absolute property of the plaintiffs
having purchased the same under Sale deeds at Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2. The suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the First Appellate Court
was fully justified in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit
in its entirety. Under the circumstances, the substantial
question of law No.1 is answered in the negative.
13. The defendants in their written statement have nowhere
contended that they are in possession of any extent of land in
Sy.No.64 and on the other hand, their specific contention was
that they are in possession and enjoyment of Sy.No.66 of which
they are the absolute owners. The application IA No.13 filed by
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42802
HC-KAR
defendants to raise a plea of adverse possession in respect of
16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64, was rejected by the Trial Court
and the said order has been confirmed by this Court in CRP
No.3480/1994 thereby, the attempt made by the defendants to
bring on record a plea about their possession over 16 guntas of
land in Sy.No.64 had failed and resultantly, there is no pleading
by the defendants that they are in possession of 16 guntas of
land. In view of Order VI Rule 2 of CPC, in the absence of
pleading to the said effect, their oral evidence that they are in
possession of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64 is of no relevance
and therefore, in my considered opinion, the First Appellate
Court was justified in not considering the oral evidence of the
defendant which is not based on any pleadings. Therefore, even
the substantial question of law No.2 is answered in the
negative. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that
this Regular Second Appeal does not merit consideration and
the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Regular
Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
