Karnataka High Court
Sri H Venkatesh vs Sri Varadasa Naika on 29 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
RSA No. 170 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI H VENKATESH
S/O LATE DR VISHNU REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.6,
"NISARGADHAMA APARTMENT"
CHAMARAJAPURAM,
MYSURU CITY, PIN:570 005
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI VARADASA NAIKA
S/O LATE THOPANAIKA
Digitally signed SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THOPANAIKA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE VARADASANAIKA,
2. VARADANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE VARADASA NAIKA,
3. MARANKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
W/O LATE VARADASA NAIKA,
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
RSA No. 170 of 2019
HC-KAR
UDBOOR VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570 008.
SRI VARADANAIKA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4. DANDITHYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE VARADANAIKA,
5. SAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
D/O LATE VARADANAIKA,
6. VARADARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE VARADANAIKA,
7. BHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O LATE VARADANAIKA,
8. CHANDRIKA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O LATE VARADANAIKA,
CHANNIBAYAMMA
DEAD BY HER LRS R4 TO 8 AND 9 TO 10
9. MANGALA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O LATE VARADANAIKA,
10. SHANKARI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O LATE VARADANAIKA,
R4 TO R10 ALL ARE RESIDING AT
UDBOOR VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570 008
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
RSA No. 170 of 2019
HC-KAR
11. CHOWDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O CHANNIAH,
RESIDING AT UDBOOR VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND
DISTRICT-570 008.
12. HUCHANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O CHANNIAH,
RESIDING AT UDBOOR VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND
DISTRICT-570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT DECREE DTD 25.08.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO,
25/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 14.11.2014 PASSED IN
OS.NO.123/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
RSA No. 170 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is defendants' second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of
suit schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that, himself and his elder
brother one Late Karihucchanayaka are the children of
Late Thopanayaka @ Thopayya and they both got
partitioned the immovable properties as per document
dated 22.06.1958 and each got 1 acre 25½ guntas of
land. Thereafter, the plaintiff had purchased 1 acre 20
guntas from the legal heirs of his elder brother-
Karihucchanayaka vide registred Sale Deed dated
14.03.1984. However, remaining 5 ½ guntas was also
given to the plaintiff for consideration orally by the legal
heirs of Karihucchanayaka. As such, the plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
i.e. an extent of 3 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.78/2 of
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
HC-KAR
Udboor Village, Jayapuram Hobli, Mysuru Taluk.
Subsequently, the defendant, having without any right,
title or interest and having colluded with the revenue
officials, got changed the revenue entries in his name.
Hence, the plaintiff preferred the suit for the aforesaid
relief.
4. However, defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the plaint
averments by filing written statement contending that
Ex.P10-mutation extract and Exs.D3 & 4 - RTC extracts,
reveals that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were the absolute
owners of the suit schedule property and by virtue of the
same, they executed a Development Agreement in favour
of defendant No.4 in respect of the suit schedule property.
As such, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the
suit schedule property.
5. The Trial Court, after framing relevant issues and
after considering the evidence and documents placed on
record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that
defendant No.4 himself admitted in his cross examination
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
HC-KAR
that the father of the plaintiff - one Thopanayaka was the
original owner of the suit schedule property and defendant
Nos.1 to 3 failed to produce any title deeds to establish
their right except Ex.P10-mutation extract and Exs.D3 & 4
- RTC extracts. However, Ex.P10 -mutation extract was
cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner as per Ex.P20. In
such circumstance, the Title Deeds placed by the plaintiff
i.e. Ex.P1-Sale Deed and Ex.P2-Partition Deed clearly
established the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in
the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Trial Court
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
6. On appeal by the defendant, the First Appellate
Court, on re-appreciation of evidence on record, concurred
with the findings of the Trial Court that in view of clear
admission of DW.1 in his evidence that the father of the
plaintiff was the original owner of the suit schedule
property, which corroborates to the testimony of PW.1
coupled with documents Exs.P1 and P2. Further, the right
claimed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
HC-KAR
property by virtue of Ex.P10 - mutation entry was
cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner as per Ex.P20.
Further, document Ex.P2-Partition Deed of the year 1958
being executed in the family of Thopanayaka @
Varadachenna, who is none other the father of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff proved that Ex.P2 had come from
proper custody, which was a document of 50 years old. As
such, in proof of its execution, the Trail Court was justified
in invoking the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian
Evidence Act, raising presumption. However, defendant
Nos.1 to 3 failed to rebut the said presumption.
7. The other contention raised by defendant Nos.1 to 3
before this Court that the GPA Holder of the plaintiff has
no right to depose evidence on behalf of the plaintiff
cannot be accepted in view of the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANISHA
MAHENDRA GALA Vs. SHALINI BHAGWAN
AVATRAMANI in Civil Appeal No.9642/2010 disposed
of on 10.04.2024.
NC: 2025:KHC:43332
HC-KAR
8. In my view, both the Courts have correctly come to
the conclusion declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner in possession of the suit schedule property and
accordingly, granted the prayer of permanent injunction in
favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from
interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff
over the suit schedule property. As such, in my view,
there is absolutely no question of law, muchless
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this
appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
