Karnataka High Court
Sri H B Malliakarjunappa vs Sri P S Maharudrappa on 29 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43082
RSA No. 971 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.971 OF 2021 (DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. H.B.MALLIKARJUNAPPA,
S/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O KHB COLONY, HOLALKERE,
HOLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ONKARAPPA N.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SRI. P.S.MAHARUDRAPPA,
by DEVIKA M S/O POOJAR SIDDAPPA,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
COURT OF AGRICULTURIST,
KARNATAKA R/O NEAR GOPALASWAMY TEMPLE,
JAIN ROAD,
HOLALKERE TOWN AND TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.27/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43082
RSA No. 971 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.179/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, HOLALKERE.
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 matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant before this Court is that both the Courts committed
an error in not granting the relief of declaration and also the
relief of encroachment made by the defendant. The learned
counsel would vehemently contend that the Courts below are
not justified in holding that the respondent has not encroached
the suit land, even though the Court Commissioner report and
sketch is very clear about the encroachment made by the
respondent. The learned counsel contend that the Courts
below erred in not considering the entries made in the RTC
pahani, which reflects about the possession of the suit land by
the appellant to the extent of 1 acre 7 guntas as per the
NC: 2025:KHC:43082
HC-KAR
registered partition deed dated 09.05.2002, which is marked as
per Ex.D.1, in view of presumption under Section 133 of the
KLR Act. The learned counsel also contend that both the Courts
committed an error in not granting the relief of declaration and
also with regard to encroachment is concerned, committed an
error and hence it requires interference of this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits
that even though there is no dispute with regard to the title of
1 acre 7 guntas of land of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
clandestinely did not place on record the title document of
partition deed under which he got the property of 1 acre 7
guntas and made an attempt before the Trial Court to get the
decree for more than what he got in the partition deed and the
same is taken note of by the Trial Court while dismissing the
suit in paragraph No.19. When the document of Ex.D.1
partition deed was confronted to the plaintiff by the defendant,
the Trial Court made an observation in the end of paragraph
No.19 that the said boundaries affixed in Ex.D.1 to the property
allotted in favour of the plaintiff differs that of the boundary
shown towards the western side of the suit schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:43082
HC-KAR
The learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff by showing
the wrong boundaries, made an attempt to knock off the
property of the defendant and hence the Trial Court rightly
dismissed the suit. The learned counsel submits that the First
Appellate Court also while dismissing the appeal, taken note of
the admission on the part of the appellant in paragraph No.30,
wherein he categorically admitted that the defendant is in
possession to the extent of 1 acre 6 guntas which he had
purchased and his vendor is in possession to the remaining
extent of 1 acre 6 guntas. When the Commissioner gave the
report erroneously, statement of objection was filed and the
Commissioner was also summoned before the Court and the
Commissioner in the cross-examination categorically admitted
that, in terms of the report, the plaintiff is in excess possession
of 3 guntas of land and further he categorically admits that
when he visited the spot and surveyed the land, he found
excess 3 guntas of land in possession of the plaintiff. The same
is rightly taken note of by the First Appellate Court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal
NC: 2025:KHC:43082
HC-KAR
of the material available on record, no doubt, the plaintiff got
the property to the extent of 1 acre 7 guntas under a registered
partition deed. Though the plaintiff has not produced the said
document, but the defendant himself confronted the document
of Ex.D.1. An attempt was made by the appellant before the
First Appellate Court by producing the document of registered
partition deed and the First Appellate Court did not receive the
same coming to the conclusion that the document is already
marked before the Trial Court as Ex.D.1. It is important to
note that the plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration
contending that the defendant has encroached to the extent of
35 guntas, but the admission given by the plaintiff in the cross-
examination is clear that the defendant is in possession to the
extent of 1 acre 6 guntas, which he had purchased and his
vendor is in possession to the extent of 1 acre 6 guntas, which
he had retained. Hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the encroachment
of 35 guntas by answering issue No.2 in the negative.
5. The First Appellate Court re-assessed the evidence
available on record extracting the admission of the plaintiff in
NC: 2025:KHC:43082
HC-KAR
paragraph No.30 and admission of the Commissioner in
paragraph No.31. The plaintiff in an ingenious method made
an attempt to get the decree showing the western boundary of
the schedule property different from the boundary which is
mentioned in Ex.D.1. The same is also observed by the Trial
Court in paragraph No.19. The plaintiff did not approach the
Court with clean hands seeking the relief of declaration in
respect of the property which he got the title in terms of the
Ex.D.1 partition deed and an attempt is made showing different
boundary in the western side making an allegation that the
defendant has encroached to the extent of 35 guntas. But the
Commissioner who has been examined before the Trial Court as
C.W.1, categorically admits that the plaintiff is in excess
possession of 3 guntas of land what he has got under the
Ex.D.1. When such admission is given, both the Courts taken
note of the fact that the plaintiff made an attempt to enrich the
extent of the land more than what he has got by showing the
western boundary different from the boundary which is shown
in Ex.D.1. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with
clean hands with specific boundaries and apart from that, the
plaintiff did not produce the document before the Court and the
NC: 2025:KHC:43082
HC-KAR
defendant took the pain to produce the document of partition
deed of the plaintiff and got clarified that the western boundary
shown in the plaint is different from Ex.D.1. When such being
the case, the appellant is not entitled for any relief before the
Court in respect of the boundary shown in the plaint, which is
not in accordance with Ex.D.1 partition deed. Both the Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the
suit of the plaintiff and hence I do not find any ground to admit
the second appeal and frame any 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
MD
