Karnataka High Court
Smt Jagadambha vs Sri S Gurusiddappa on 31 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43795
RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W
RSA No.843/2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 809 OF 2024 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.843 OF 2024 (INJ)
IN RSA NO.809/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT JAGADAMBHA
W/O SIDDAPPA,
D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AND
SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. SRI SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE MADAPPA @ MAKAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
by
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SONALLI,
COURTOF BELIGERE HOBLI,
KARNATAKA
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571129.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HEGDE MANJUNATH MAHABALESHWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI S GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43795
RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W
RSA No.843/2024
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT SONALLI VILLAGE,
BILIGERE HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571129.
2. SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SONALLI,
BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571129.
...RESPONDENTS
(NIL)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED IN
RA NO.33/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2021
PASSED IN OS NO.400/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD.
IN RSA NO.843/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT JAGADAMBHA
W/O SIDDAPPA
D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AND
SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. SRI SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE MADAPPA ALIS MAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT SONALLI
BELIGERE HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43795
RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W
RSA No.843/2024
HC-KAR
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571129
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HEGDE MANJUNATH MAHABALESHWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI S M MAHESHA
S/O MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT SONALLI VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571129
2. SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT SONALLI, BILIGERE HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571129
...RESPONDENTS
(NIL)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED IN
RA NO.31/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2021
PASSED IN OS NO.406/2014 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43795
RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W
RSA No.843/2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals are filed against the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court in granting the relief
of permanent injunction and the same has been confirmed
in the appeals by the First Appellate Court.
2. Since both the appeals are arising out of similar
dispute and the parties are one and the same, both the
appeals are clubbed, heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
3. These two second appeals are filed against the
concurrent finding.
4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants is that the property is not identified and hence
the question of granting the relief of permanent injunction
doesn't arise. However, the counsel does not dispute the
fact that property originally belongs to one Mahadevappa,
who is none other than the father of appellant No.1 and
also the father-in-law of the appellant No.2, in respect of
NC: 2025:KHC:43795
RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W
HC-KAR
Sy.No.50/5B. The counsel would submit that out of 1 Acre
15 Guntas, only the land to the extent of 15 Guntas was
converted and sites were sold. But the counsel would
contend that in 15 Guntas of land, there cannot be 12 or
more sites. Hence, identity is in dispute.
5. Having considered the material on record, the trial
Court came to the conclusion that when the father had
formed the sites and sold the same by executing the sale
deeds, in both the cases, sale deeds were produced before
the Court. Apart from the sale deeds, assessment register
extracts were also produced before the Court. Further, the
tax paid receipts were produced before the Court and also
placed reliance upon the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.492/2008 and also the judgment passed in
R.A.No.40/2014. Those suit and appeal were filed by the
daughter for the relief of partition against the father and
the same also came to be dismissed. The said factors were
also taken note of by the trial Court. When the property
was sold by forming the sites and description was given in
NC: 2025:KHC:43795
RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W
HC-KAR
terms of the sale deeds and subsequently, the property
was also mutated in favour of the plaintiffs and tax
receipts were also produced before the Court, the Court
has to take note, while considering the suit for injunction,
whether the plaintiffs were in possession as on the date of
filing of the suit.
6. The documents which have been placed before the
trial Court clearly discloses that after selling the property,
the khata was transferred in favour of the plaintiffs and
also the assessment extract also stands in the name of
plaintiffs respectively i.e. respondents-plaintiffs in these
two cases. These two matters were also taken together
because the sites were formed in the very same survey
number and parties are also one and the same.
7. Having considered the same, even the First Appellate
Court also re-appreciated both oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the
appellants for the relief of partition in O.S.No.492/2008
was dismissed and the same was confirmed in
NC: 2025:KHC:43795
RSA No. 809 of 2024 C/W
HC-KAR
R.A.No.40/2014. An observation was made that the
appellants herein cannot claim any right in respect of the
sites which have been sold, since the property belongs to
the Mahadevappa.
8. Now, the said Mahadevappa is no more. If any
property remains in the very same survey number, the
appellants can claim the same, but not in respect of the
property which has been already sold by the father during
his lifetime. Since the property was his exclusive property,
I do not find any ground to admit and frame any
substantial question of law.
9. With this observation, these two appeals are
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
HA
