[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gouravva W/O. Narayan Singh vs Raghuveer S/O. Shrinivas Haragod on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
RSA No. 100624 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100624 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. NARAYAN SINGH,
GOURAVVA D/O. HANUMANT SINGH FAKIRSINGH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S.
1. SMT. RUKMINIBAI
PARASHURAM SINGH SAMPAGAONKAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BANNI ONI, NAVALOOR, DHARWAD-580009.
2. SMT. REKHA W/O. MALTESH JAMADAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VEERABHADRESHWAR NAGAR,
GUTTAL, TALUKA: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
3. SMT. RENUKABAI RAJUSINGH RAJAPUT,
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BENCH
R/O. LANDAKANAHALLI, CHIPGI,
TALUKA: SIRSI-581401.
4. HANUMANT SINGH S/O. NARAYAN SINGH,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. INDOOR, TALUKA: MUNDGOD-581349.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
RSA No. 100624 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. RAGHUVEER S/O. SHRINIVAS HARAGOD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. INDOOR,
TALUKA: MUNDGOD (U.K)-581349.
2. RAMASINGH S/O. SHRINIVAS HARAGOD,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. INDOOR,
TALUKA: MUNDGOD (U.K)-581349.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2024
DISMISSING REGULAR APPEAL NO.5015/2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, WHERE UNDER CONFIRMED THE
ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 IN O.S.NO.52/2017 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, YELLAPUR SITTING AT
MUNDAGOD AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
RSA No. 100624 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Even though the matter is listed for hearing of the
Interlocutory Application, it is heard on merits.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this second
appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. praying for setting aside the
judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 in R.A.No.5015/2023
on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar
sitting at Sirsi (in short 'first appellate court') wherein the
judgment and decree dated 24.07.2023 in O.S.No.52/2017 on
the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur, sitting at Mundgod (in
short 'trial court') is confirmed.
3. The parties would be referred to their ranks as they
were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
4. Initially plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 have filed suit against
defendant Nos.1 & 2 praying for the relief of declaration that
defendant No.1 has no absolute right, title and interest in or
over suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.235 measuring 2
acres 20 guntas out of total extent of 4 acres 20 guntas
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
situated at Indoor village, Mundagod Taluk; sale deed dated
12.07.2001 is null and void and inoperative in law, plaintiff
No.1 is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and for
the relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendants from
interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over
suit schedule property.
5. The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is
that one Hanumanth Singh son of Fakir Singh Mugali, was the
father of plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of plaintiff No.2 and
defendant No.2. He died on 03.09.1983 leaving behind his
only daughter-plaintiff No.1. From revenue records, it is seen
that based on the Will, Khata of suit schedule property was
mutated into the name of defendant No.2. There is no valid
Will executed by Hanumanth Singh. Hanumanth Singh, the
father of plaintiff No.1 has not executed any such Will. Hence,
defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest to alienate suit
schedule property to defendant No.1. During November-2017,
defendant No.1 interfered with peaceful possession and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
enjoyment of plaintiffs over suit schedule property. Hence, the
suit for appropriate relief.
6. After service of summons, defendant No.1 filed his
written statement, wherein he contended that the description
of suit schedule property is incorrect. The plaintiffs have no
locus standi to file the suit. Hanumanth Singh had executed
registered Will dated 11.04.1972 in favour of defendant No.2
and his wife-Smt.Rindavva. After his death, defendant No.2
has given application to revenue authorities to mutate his
name. Accordingly, as per M.E.No.1701 dated 25.09.1983
name of defendant No.2 was entered and he became absolute
owner of the property by virtue of Will. Defendant No.2 was
minor at that time and represented by his mother-Gouravva
(plaintiff No.1). Based on it, defendant No.2 sold suit schedule
property under registered sale deed dated 12.07.2001 to
defendant No.1 for valid sale consideration amount of
₹64,000/-. Accordingly, M.E.No.2470 was certified and name
of defendant No.1 entered in R.T.Cs. He is in possession and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
enjoyment of suit schedule property and hence, prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
7. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court has
framed the following issues:
"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
deceased Hanumanth had not executed any
Will in favour of D.2 in respect of suit
property and alleged Will is in valid and in-
operative as contended?
2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the
alleged sale deed dated 12/07/2001
executed by defendant No.2 in favor of
defendant No.1 in respect of suit property is
null and void and in-operative in law?
3) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in
actual physical possession and enjoyment of
suit property as on the date of suit?
4) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged
obstructions of defendants from enjoyment of
suit property by them?
5) Whether this suit is well within the period of
limitation?
6) Whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction
to try this suit?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
7) Whether this suit is suffering from non-
joinder of necessary parties and non inclusion
of the necessary properties?
8) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he
is bonafide purchaser of suit property for
valuable consideration?
9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit
as sought for?
10) What order or decree?"
8. After framing of issues, recording evidence and
hearing arguments, the trial Court came to the conclusion that
plaintiffs failed to prove that deceased Hanumanth Singh has
not executed the Will in favour of defendant No.2; defendant
No.2 has valid right, title and interest to execute registered
sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 was
in possession and enjoyment of suit scheduled property and
not plaintiffs. Further, the suit is barred by law of limitation
and thereby dismissed the suit. The trial Court by making
observation about the oral and documentary evidence put
forth before it has come to the above said conclusion.
9. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the legal
representatives of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 have filed the appeal
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
which is registered in R.A.No.5015/2023 before first appellate
court.
10. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the First
Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the
judgment and decree of trial court holding that plaintiffs have
failed to prove their contention and the suit is apparently
barred by limitation.
11. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the
Courts, the plaintiffs/appellants are before this Court. The
admitted facts of the case are that, one Hanumanth Singh was
owner of the suit schedule property. According to revenue
documents produced by defendant No.1, as per M.E.No.1701,
Sy.Nos.234 and 235 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas were
mutated into the names of defendant No.2 and his
grandmother-Rindavva, the wife of Hanumanth Singh Mugali
based on the registered Will executed by Hanumanth Singh.
At that time, this defendant No.2 was minor and represented
by minor guardian. Hanumanth Singh died on 03.09.1983; on
25.09.1983 the order of revenue officer was passed. Before
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
that notice was issued and on 18.09.1983 Rindavva has
submitted no objection to enter the name of defendant No.2
represented by his minor guardian i.e., Smt.Gouravva. In that
document Sy.No.235 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas was given
to defendant No.2.
12. Based on these revenue entries, the R.T.Cs. were
mutated into the name of defendant No.2 in respect of
Sy.No.235 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas. It continued in his
name, till he sold it to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 the
purchaser of Sy.No.235 measuring 2 acres out of 4 acres 20
guntas has produced the registered sale deed dated
12.07.2001 as per Ex.D.4. It reveals that this document is
signed by defendant No.2 and his mother-plaintiff No.1. Thus,
plaintiff No.1 was fully aware about sale of the property by
defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 on the date of sale
deed itself i.e. on 12.07.2001 itself. She has filed the suit for
declaration in the year 2017 that said sale date is null and
void.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
13. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to
obtain the relief of declaration, the period of limitation is three
years, when the right to sue is accrued. On the date of sale
deed itself plaintiff No.1 was fully aware about execution of
the sale deed, because it is duly signed by her. Hence, within
three years from the date of sale deed, she has not filed the
suit. But she has filed the suit in the year 2017 i.e. 16 years
after execution of the sale deed. Even if the contention as
pleaded in the plaint is taken into consideration, during
lifetime of his mother, plaintiff No.2 will not get any right over
the property. Because, if his contention is taken as correct
that his grandfather has not executed any Will, then it would
be succeeded by plaintiff No.1 and during her lifetime, he
would not get any right over suit schedule property. Under
these circumstances, definitely, the suit filed by plaintiffs is
barred by limitation and it was considered by the First
Appellate Court.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
submits that the Will in question has not been proved in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
accordance with law and therefore defendant No.1 would not
acquire any right over the suit schedule property. However, it
is to be noted that plaintiff No.1, on behalf of defendant No.2,
had submitted an application for mutation of Sy. No.234 &
235 in the name of defendant No.2, as minor guardian, by
stating that the deceased Hanumanth Singh had bequeathed
the property under the Will in favour of defendant No.2. It is
also stated in the said application that the said application was
accompanied with the original Will.
15. Based on those documents, the property was
mutated into the name of defendant No.2 in the year 1983
itself. The said mutation entry was never challenged till the
year 2017. On the basis of this mutation entry, the name of
defendant No.2 continued in the revenue records and after the
sale in favour of defendant No.1, his name was also entered in
respect of 2 acres of Sy.No.235. These entries continued from
1983 till 2017. Therefore, at this stage, the question of
proving the Will by defendant No.2 does not arise, particularly
when the mutation was effected long ago and plaintiff No.1
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
was fully aware of the same and she herself produced said Will
before the revenue authorities for mutation.
16. Considering these aspects, Trial Court has rightly
dismissed the suit of the appellant, which is confirmed by the
First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this second appeal.
17. Insofar as I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal
is concerned, the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not
sufficient to condone the delay. The only ground urged by
appellant No.4 in the affidavit annexed to the application is
that, due to ill-health and financial difficulties the appeal could
not be filed within the period of limitation. Even the nature of
ill-health of appellant No.4 is not mentioned in the affidavit
and no medical records are produced to substantiate the
alleged ill-health. Further, appellant No.4 alone has stated
such reason, whereas appellants No.1 to 3 have not assigned
any reason for the delay. The ill-health of appellant No.4 alone
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3985
HC-KAR
cannot be a ground to condone the delay on behalf of all the
appellants.
18. Insofar as financial condition of appellant No.4 is
concerned, the court fee of only Rs.25/- is paid on the appeal.
Hence, the plea of financial difficulty is also not convincing.
19. Hence, I.A. No.1/2025 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is dismissed.
20. Consequently, the second appeal filed under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is dismissed
at the stage of admission itself, as barred by limitation and
also on merits, without issuing notice to the respondents.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SSP:Para 1 to 14
gab:Para 15 to end
CT-MCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21
