Lakshmamma Since Deceased By Her Lrs Sri ... vs The Government Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1950 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Lakshmamma Since Deceased By Her Lrs Sri ... vs The Government Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2026

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                   -1-
                                                                NC: 2026:KHC:13671
                                                              RSA No. 1078 of 2024


                       HC-KAR


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                                  BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                      REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
                      BETWEEN:

                            LAKSHMAMMA
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS


                      1.    SRI G KRISHNAPPA
                            S/O LATE GURAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

                      2.    G CHANDRAPPA
                            S/O LATE GURAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

                            G JAYARAM
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS


                      3.    SRI NANDEESHA
Digitally signed by         S/O LATE G JAYARAM
GEETHAKUMARI                AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PARLATTAYA S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka                   ALL ARE R/AT BANGLAPET
                            BEHIND HEBBAGODI BUS STOP
                            BOMMASANDRA POST,
                            ATTIBELE HOBLI,
                            ANEKAL TALUK
                            BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 560099
                                                                      ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V.,ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC:13671
                                        RSA No. 1078 of 2024


 HC-KAR


AND:

1.   THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
     REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
     M S BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR,
     DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU 560001

2.   THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
     BENGALURU 560007.

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 560007.

4.   THE TAHSILDAR
     ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL-562106

     Y VENKATESH
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS


5.   SRI KANTHARAJ
     S/O LATE Y VENKATESH
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

     SRI RAJANNA
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS


6.   GOWTHAM
     S/O LATE RAJANNA
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

     MUNIKRISHNA
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
7.
     MALA
     W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                             -3-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC:13671
                                       RSA No. 1078 of 2024


 HC-KAR


8.   SRI SHIVAPPA
     S/O LATE YELLAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

9.   SRI LAKSHMANA
     S/O LT YELLAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

10. SRI PRAKASH
    S/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
    GRAND SON OF LATE YELLAMMA

11. SRI NAGARAJ
    S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

     RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 11 ARE
     LRS. OF PLAINTIFF NO.2 IN
     O.S.NO.69/2006.
     AND ARE R/AT BANGLAPET
     BEHIND HEBBAGODI BUS STOP
     BOMMASANDRA POST ATTIBELE HOBLI,
     ANEKAL TALUK
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 560099
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT   AND   DECREE   DATED   21.02.2023   PASSED   IN   RA
NO.5058/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL.
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 17.04.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.69/2006 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL. TRIAL COURT DISMISSED
THE SUIT AND ETC.

      THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -4-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC:13671
                                             RSA No. 1078 of 2024


HC-KAR


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Sri V.Vishwanath Setty, learned counsel for appellants

submitted that challenging concurrent findings of dismissal of

suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining

defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession,

unsuccessful plaintiffs are before this Court.

2. In plaint, it was stated plaintiffs belonged to

Schedule Caste and were landless bounded labourers residing

at Banglapet. It was stated originally plaintiffs were in

possession and cultivation of extent of 3 Acres and 31 guntas of

Government land. After, a portion of it was granted to

Doddamuniswamy, who was Chairman of panchayat, plaintiffs

were in possession and cultivation of 1 Acre 10 guntas of land

in Sy.no.66 of Hebbagodi village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,

Bengaluru Urban District ('suit property', for short).

3. It was further stated predecessor of plaintiffs one

Hutchappa, father-in-law of plaintiff no.1 had during his lifetime

filed application for grant of said land, which was pending.

Since there was interference by Tahsildar, on 15.07.1991,

NC: 2026:KHC:13671

HC-KAR

plaintiffs filed applications for regularization of unauthorized

cultivation in respect of 25 guntas of land. But, claiming to

have perfected title by adverse possession by being in

continuous and uninterrupted possession, suit was filed against

State, Special Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner

and Tahsildar.

4. It was submitted, suit was opposed by defendants.

In written statement they denied plaint averments in toto

including assertion about plaintiffs being in possession of suit

property. They stated suit property was government land which

was in possession of government, plaintiffs were merely

seeking to knock off valuable land. It was further stated claim

for adverse possession was untenable in view of decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (2) SCC 461. On

said ground sought dismissal of suit.

5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following

issues and recorded evidence :

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of the defendants over the suit

NC: 2026:KHC:13671

HC-KAR

schedule property as stated in para 13 of the plaint?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

5. Whether the defendants prove that there has no cause of action to file the above suit?

6. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the plaint and Court fee paid on the plaint is highly insufficient?

7. What decree or order?

6. In trial, plaintiffs examined three witnesses as PW1

to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13, while defendants an

official as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4.

7. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1

to 3 in negative, issues no.4 to 6 in affirmative and issue no.7

by dismissing suit. Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed RA no.5058/2018

on various grounds. Based on same, Appellate Court had

framed following:

Points

1. Whether appellants have shown the sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 1308 days for filing the appeal and the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is fit to be allowed?

NC: 2026:KHC:13671

HC-KAR

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the owner and in possession of suit land Sy.no.66 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas of Hebbagodi village?

3. Whether judgment and decree passed in O.S.no.69/2006 dated 17.04.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anekal against the material on records and need of interference by this Court?

4. What Order?

8. On consideration, appellate Court answered point

no.1 in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 in negative and point

no.4 by dismissing appeal on ground of delay. Aggrieved by

same, this appeal is filed.

9. However there is a delay of 410 days in filing

appeal. IA no.1/2026 is filed for its condonation. In para-4 of

affidavit filed in support of application, only explanation offered

is as follows:

"4. I further submit that subsequent to obtaining of certified copy of the order, due to my ill health since I was suffering from High Blood pressure and lack of knowledge, I could not be able to meet my advocate and thereafterwards I was approached the advocate and I have instructed my advocate to file the above appeal. Accordingly, the appeal came to be filed, by that time there was delay of five days for filing of the above appeal. Hence, I have come up with the accompanying application praying this Hon'ble Court to condone the

NC: 2026:KHC:13671

HC-KAR

delay in filing the above appeal. Hence, this application."

10. Admittedly, appeal is belated by 410 days. Only

reason assigned namely ill-health due to hypertension without

supported by Medical Certificate and that too when first appeal

was also dismissed on ground of delay, would appear omnibus

and unreliable. Moreso when there are other appellants and

there is no explanation why any one of them could not pursue

matter and file appeal in time. Thus, there is no proper

explanation for delay. Therefore, IA no.1/2026 is rejected.

11. Consequently, Appeal is dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for appellants

submitted that application for regularisation filed by

plaintiffs was still pending before Authorities.

If it is so, it is for plaintiffs to pursue same in

accordance with law. It is merely held herein that suit for

declaration of title is not tenable.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23