Karnataka High Court
Sri.Basappa vs Shri.Sudhendra on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14701
RSA No. 100065 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100065 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAPPA
S/O. BALANAGOUDA GOUDAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PATTADAKAL,
TQ. AND DIST. BADAMI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SUDHENDRA
S/O. SHAMRAO MUTTALIK DESAI @ KARAKUN,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
1A. SMT. SUMANGALA
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.31 W/O. SUDHENDRARAO MUTALIKDESAI @ KARKUN,
15:12:48
+0530 AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PATTADAKAL VILLAGE,
TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587201.
1B. SMT. JYOTHI
W/O. MADHAV BOMMIGATTI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE,
R/O. CHALUKYANAGAR, BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587202.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14701
RSA No. 100065 of 2017
HC-KAR
1C. SMT. REVATI
W/O. RAGHAVENDRA KERUR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KILLA ONI, KERUR VILLAGE,
TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587206.
1D. SRI. SANTHOSH
S/O. SUDHENDRARAO MUTALIKDESAI @ KARKUN,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PATTADAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND
SMT. P.S. TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO (D))
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT & DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, BADAMI DATED 04.11.2016 AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S. NO.141/2005 DATED
23.04.2016 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BADAMI AND DECREE THE SUIT OF
THE PLAINTIFF AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14701
RSA No. 100065 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed O.S.No.141/2005
seeking relief of declaration and injunction against the
defendant.
3. It is a case of the appellant/plaintiff that one
Raghavendra Rao Karkun was absolute owner of VPC No.140 in
Pattadakal village and he had no issues. He went to Maharashtra
and settled there permanently. The maternal grandfather of the
plaintiff-Adiveppa was residing at Pattadkal and he had no house
property and as such in the year 1955, the said Adiveppa started
residing in the house belonging to the said Raghavendra Rao. He
made repairs to the said house from time to time and started
residing there. Thereafter, it is alleged that one Naraso
Dheerendra Karakun had got up certain created documents
behind the back of the plaintiff. He had neither the absolute
right, title or interest over the suit schedule property nor he was
the successor of Raghavendra Rao. It is contented that there was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14701
HC-KAR
interference and obstruction by the defendant and as such, the
plaintiff was forced to file the present suit against the said
Naraso Dheerendra Karakun and sought declaration that by way
of adverse possession, he has become the owner of suit schedule
property. He also sought for consequential relief of injunction.
4. On service of notice, the defendant appeared and
contented that the allegations of the plaintiff are false and
frivolous and the suit schedule property was belonging to
Raghavendra Rao Karakun and he was unmarried and had no
Class-I legal heirs and as such, the defendant being the Class-II
legal heir has succeeded to the estate. Hence, he had filed
O.S.No.50/2004 for declaration of his heirship and the Court had
decreed the said suit. It is contented that the defendant has
been paying the taxes etc., and therefore, the suit deserves to
be dismissed. Appropriate issues were framed by the trial Court
and after adducing evidence, it came to the conclusion that the
plaintiff has not proved the ingredients of adverse possession
and as such, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff
approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.20/2010 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14701
HC-KAR
after hearing both sides, the First Appellate Court also held that
no interference is needed and dismissed the appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the grounds on which the suit as well as the appeal
were dismissed, are not proper and correct. He contends that the
First Appellate Court and the Trial Court should have held that
the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit schedule property
by adverse possession. Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff
being continuously for a long period, he would be entitled for the
reliefs sought in the suit.
6. It is pertinent to note that the ingredients that are
required to prove the adverse possession are no more
res integra. At the cost of repetition, to prove an adverse
possession, it is essential that the plaintiff has to admit the title
of the rightful owner and then, establish as to when and how he
asserted the title over the suit schedule property and it became
adverse to the interest of the real owner. Unless these aspects
are established, the plaintiff cannot succeed in his contention.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14701
HC-KAR
7. Evidently, the plaintiff is not admitting the title of the
defendant. It is his contention that one Raghavendra Rao was
the owner of the property, but not the defendant. When he
denies the title of the defendant, the question of granting the
relief of declaration on adverse possession do not arise. This
fundamental requirement of claiming adverse possession has not
been established by the pleadings of the plaintiff.
8. In view of the same, a factual finding recorded by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court cannot be interfered
with. Whatever may be the evidence available on record, the
contention that the defendant is not the real title holder, would
itself be sufficient enough to hold that the relief of declaration on
adverse possession cannot be granted. Under these
circumstances, both the Courts below were justified in holding
that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed.
9. Secondly, in the said suit, the contention of the
defendant that there was a decree in favour of the defendant in
O.S No.50/2004 has not been overcome. It is not known in what
context the said decree was obtained by the defendant. Be that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14701
HC-KAR
as it may, that would not be of any relevance in the second
appeal.
10. For the above said reasons, no substantial question
of law arises in the matter and as such, the appeal is dismissed
at the admission stage.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:PA
