Karnataka High Court

Smt. Thimmakka vs Smt. Jayamma on 11 September, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                                         RSA No. 149 of 2020


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2020 (DEC)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT. THIMMAKKA
                         W/O LATE SRI NARASIMHAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
                         R/O JYOTHI NAGAR
                         NELAMANGALA TOWN
                         BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

                         REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
                         SRI N MURTHY
                         S/O LATE SRI NARASIMHAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                         R/O JYOTHI NAGAR
Digitally signed         NELAMANGALA TOWN
by
SHARADAVANI              BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
B
Location: High
                                                                ...APPELLANT
Court of
Karnataka          (BY SRI. BASAVANNA K .M.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    SMT. JAYAMMA
                         W/O LATE SRI RUDRAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                         NO.169, 6TH MAIN ROAD
                         5TH CROSS RAJAGOPAL NAGAR
                         PEENYA II STAGE
                          -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                   RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




     BENGALURU-560058.

2.   R ARUN
     S/O LATE SRI RUDRAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     NO.169, 6TH MAIN ROAD
     5TH CROSS RAJAGOPAL NAGAR
     PEENYA II STAGE
     BENGALURU-560058.

3.   RAVI
     W/O LATE SRI RUDRAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     NO.169, 6TH MAIN ROAD
     5TH CROSS RAJAGOPAL NAGAR
     PEENYA II STAGE
     BENGALURU-560058.

4.   BASAVARAJ
     S/O LATE SRI GANGA RUDRAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     R/O JOGIPALYA HAMLLET
     BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     NELAMANGALA TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

5.   RAJANNA
     S/O LATE SRI RANGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     R/O JOGIPALYA HAMLLET
     BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     NELAMANGALA TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
                          -3-
                                 NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




6.   NANJUNDAIAH
     S/O LATE SRI RANGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     R/O JOGIPALYA HAMLLET
     BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     NELAMANGALA TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

7.   MUNIBYRAIAH
     S/O LATE SRI RANGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     R/O JOGIPALYA HAMLLET
     BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     NELAMANGALA TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

8.   DODDAHANUMAKKA
     W/O SRI THIMMAIAH
     R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     NELAMANGALA TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

9.   GALI HANUMAIAH
     S/O SRI POOJAHANUMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT YEARS
     R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     NELAMANGALA TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

10. HANUMAIAH
    S/O SRI POOJAHANUMAIAH
                          -4-
                                  NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                 RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




    AGED ABOUT   YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

11. KEMPARASAMMA
    W/O LATE SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

12. MASTER KUMAR
    S/O LATE SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT     YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

13. HANUMAKKA
    D/O SRI GANGAHANUMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

14. GOVINDARAJU
    S/O SRI VENKATARAMAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
                         -5-
                                NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                               RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

15. VENKATAPPA
    S/O SRI KARIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

16. ANJANAPPA
    S/O SRI KARIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

17. VENKATARAMAIAH
    S/O SRI KARIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

18. THIMMARAYAPPA
    S/O SRI KARIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
                          -6-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                  RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




19. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
    SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS THIMMARAYAPPA
    S/O LATE SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

20. MANJAMMA
    D/O LATE SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

21. GANGAMMA
    D/O LATE SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

22. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
    S/O LATE SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

23. NAGESHAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
    KEMPAKKA
                         -7-
                                NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                               RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




    W/O LATE SRI NAGESHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

24. SHANTHAMMA
    D/O LATE SRI NAGESHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

25. HUCCHAMMA
    D/O LATE SRI NAGESHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

26. LAKSHMAMMA
    D/O LATE SRI NAGESHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

27. JAYAMMA
    D/O LATE SRI NAGESHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
                         -8-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                  RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

28. LAKSHMAMMA
    D/O LATE SRI NAGESHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

29. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE SRI HANUMAIAH SINCE
    DECEASED BY HIS LRS
    SRI RAJANNA
    S/O LATE SRI HANUMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

30. MANJUNATH
    S/O LATE SRI HANUMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

31. KARIYAPPA
    S/O LATE SRI POOJAGANGAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI
                              -9-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                         RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




      NELAMANGALA TALUK
      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

32. LAKSHMAMMA
    W/O LATE SRI SIDDALINGAPPA
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O NO.171, II CROSS,
    IV MAIN ROAD, II PHASE,
    MANJUNATH NAGAR
    BENGALURU-560010.

33. BYLEGOWDA
    S/O LATE SRI KALAIAH
    AGED ABOUT YEARS
    R/O CHIKKAPUTTAIAHANA PALYA
    KASABA HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY   SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7;
      SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R14, R18,
      R22, R29 AND R30;
      SRI. B.M.GUNJAL., ADVOCATE FOR R32;
      R11 AND R17 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2019 PASSED IN
RA NO 03/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT   AND    SESSIONS      JUDGE,   BENGALURU       RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE    THE   JUDGMENT   AND      DECREED    DATED18.11.2011
PASSED IN OS NO 129/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA.
                               - 10 -
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:36023
                                             RSA No. 149 of 2020


HC-KAR




     THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA



                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Basavanna K.M, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant and Sri. T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

Sri P.M.Siddmallappa, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.14, 18, 22, 29 and 30 and Sri. B.M. Gunjal, learned

counsel for respondent No.32 are absent.

2. Defendant No.1 is the appellant before this Court

challenging the order of the First Appellate Court, whereby

the First Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of the suit

and decreed the suit without affording the opportunity for

the defendant to contest the additional evidence and

without disposing off the said application.

3. At the outset, it is to be noted that

O.S.No.129/2009 was dismissed on the ground of

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36023

HC-KAR

jurisdiction as the subject matter of the suit property was

service inam land.

4. Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate

Court in R.A.No.3/2012. In the said appeal, plaintiffs also

filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of

Civil Procedure.

5. Without holding any enquiry nor affording the

opportunity for the defendant to contest the probative

value of the additional evidence, First Appellate Court

accepted the additional evidence and decreed the suit of

plaintiffs by reversing the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Validity of the said judgment of the First Appellate

Court is called in question in the present appeal.

7. In the appeal, following substantial questions of

law have been raised:

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree on the basis of exhibit P1 dated 27.09.2001 and exhibit P7 dated 04.07.1963 holding the schedule land is a service inam land enures to the benefits of the Plaintiffs as per the provisions of the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36023

HC-KAR

Act of 1961 ignoring the grant made in favour of the predecessors of Defendant Nos. 2 to 17 on the basis of the grant orders exhibits D2 & D3 dated 08.09.1959 and 14.08.1959 as per the provisions of Act of 1954 as declared by this Hon'ble Court in case of Stumps Sulae and Somappa Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandrappa reported in ILR 1985 KAR 3872 and Muniyappa Vs State reported in ILR 1991 KAR 3504?

(ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree relying on exhibits P1 & P7 despite exhibit P1 is not the re-grant order and the persons who have executed the sale deed dated 04.07.1963 (exhibit P7) in favour of Sri. Dasappa are not the LR's of the occupants of the seven families of the occupants as per grant orders exhibits D2 & D3?

(ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree despite there are no material documents to show that the schedule land is a service inam land and the Plaintiffs are the inferior office holders (Barawardhars) as defined under the Act of 1961?

(iv) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree despite the barr under the provisions of the Act of 1954 in entertaining the suit without challenging the validity of the grant orders exhibits D2 & D3 before the Appellate Authority?

(v) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree on the basis of additional evidence (exhibits P8 to P10) without affording an opportunity to the Defendants at the Appellate stage of the proceedings?

(vi) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree in issuing an order of injunction for the first time after rejection of such request made before the Trail Court on 23.07.2004 on IA No.4 which was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in MFA No.7074/2004 on 17.03.2006?

(vii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree declaring the Plaintiffs as the owners/occupants without there being any iota of

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36023

HC-KAR

evidence to show that they are the LR's of the holders/Barawardhars of the Inferior Office of Thoti of Byrasandra village?

(viii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree holding that the order exhibit P1 is a re-grant order in favour of Plaintiff No.7 who is even the Barawardhar of Thoti family enuring the benefit of re-grant order to the other Plaintiffs as the owners/occupants?

(ix) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree on the premises that the Byrasandra village is not included in the notification dated 13.01.1959 bearing No.RD3MIN 58 under the Act of 1954 and as such the grant orders exhibits D2 & D3 in favour of the seven occupants treating as nature of the land as sthala inam can be ignored, while treating the re-grant order as per exhibit P1 under the Act of 1961 enuring to the benefits of the Plaintiff No.7 thereby enures to the other Plaintiffs?

(x) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in granting judgment and decree declaring the Plaintiffs as owners ignoring the rights of Defendant No.1 as per exhibit P6 who is a bonafide purchaser having effected improvements over the schedule land after acting upon the sale deed (exhibit P6) dated 29.11.2002?.

8. Since the First Appellate Court has committed

an error in not holding an enquiry in respect of additional

evidence placed before it and accepting the additional

evidence and decreeing the suit has resulted in

miscarriage of justice.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36023

HC-KAR

9. Thus, without adverting to the substantial

questions of law raised in the appeal, appeal can be

disposed off by setting aside the order of the First

Appellate Court and permitting the plaintiffs to place the

additional evidence before the Trial Court for fresh

adjudication after affording suitable opportunity for the

defendant.

10. Sri. T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing

for respondents No.1 to 7 after perusal of the judgment of

the First Appellate Court submits that though the

contentions taken by the appellant/defendant is incorrect,

there is a procedural lapse on the part of the First

Appellate Court inasmuch as an opportunity ought to have

been given to the defendant with regard to the additional

evidence placed by plaintiffs before the First Appellate

Court.

11. In view of the same, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the matter needs to be remitted to

the Trial Court for fresh adjudication after affording

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36023

HC-KAR

necessary opportunity for both the parties including the

placing of additional evidence on record. Hence, this Court

pass the following :

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed.

ii) The impugned judgment dated 07.12.2019

on the file of the learned VIII Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

Rural District in RA.No.3/2012, is hereby

set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for

fresh adjudication in O.S.No.129/2009 after

affording necessary opportunities for both

the parties and allowing the plaintiff to

place the additional evidence on record.