IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

RSA.NO.100084/2017 (DEC)

BETWEEN

1 . SMT.PUTTAVVA

W/O NAGAPPA BENAKANALLI,

AGE: 41 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

2 . SMT.SHARADA

W/O YALLAPPA BENAKANALLI

@ HATTIMAUUTR,

AGE: 34 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE

R/O: YALAVAGI,

TQ: SAVANUR,

DIST: HAVERI-581118.

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADV.)

AND

1 . YALLAPPA S/O NINGAPPA UPPIN,

AGE: 41 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

2 . YALLAPPA

S/O MALLAPPA UPPIN,

AGE: 46 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

2

3 . NINGAPPA

S/O MALLAPPA UPPIN,

AGE: 41 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

4 . BASAVARAJ

S/O MALLAPPA UPPIN,

AGE: 36 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

RESPONDENTS ARE ALL

R/O: YALAVAGI,

TQ: SAVANUR,

DIST: HAVERI-581118.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VISHWANATH S.BICHAGATTI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE

JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT:23.01.2016 PASSED IN R.A. NO.

9/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HAVERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT

AND DECREE DTD:20.12.2014 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 48/2009 ON THE

FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

SAVANUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND

PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

JUDGMENT

The captioned Regular Second Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful

defendants

questioning

the

concurrent

findings of the courts below in decreeing the suit filed by

the respondents/plaintiffs declaring them to be the

absolute owners of the suit schedule property and granting

consequential relief of injunction.

2.

The brief facts leading to the case are as

follows: Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that

open space bearing VPC No.413/A1 measuring 5 guntas,

East-West 75 feet, North-South 70 feet situated at Yalavagi

village of Savanur Taluk is ancestral property. The

respondents/plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule

properties which are described as Schedule A & B in the

plaint were owned and possessed by propositus of the

plaintiffs

namely,

Yallappa

G.Uppin.

The

respondents/plaintiffs contended that propositus Yallappa

purchased the suit schedule property under a registered

4

sale deed dated 23.12.1945 for a sale consideration of

Rs.96/-. The respondents/plaintiffs further contended that

pursuant to acquisition of valid right and title under the

registered sale deed, the propositus Yallappa’s name was

duly mutated in the revenue records under M.E.No.1322 of

Yalavagi village. After the death of Yallappa, the father of

plaintiff No.1 namely, Ningappa and father of plaintiff Nos.2

to 4 namely, Mallappa both succeeded to the properties left

behind by the propositus Yallappa.

3.

Respondents/plaintiffs have further contended

that plot No.27 in Sy.No.82/A8 is totally measuring 11

guntas. The plaintiffs’ ancestors together have alienated a

portion of plot No.27 measuring 4 guntas and 11¾ annas

in favour of Fakirappa Benakanahalli under a registered

sale deed dated 05.03.1970. Having sold 4 guntas 11

annas, the plaintiffs’ ancestors namely, Ningappa and

Mallappa retained 6 guntas and 4 ¼ annas and therefore,

the present plaintiffs claim that even though a portion of

5

the suit schedule property was sold by their ancestors

under registered sale deed dated 05.03.1970, they

continued to be owners of 6 guntas 4 ¼ annas.

Respondents/plaintiffs further contended that on account of

change of jurisdiction from revenue to VPC, Village

Panchayat Yalavigi has assigned VPC No.413/A and

respondents/plaintiffs name was duly mutated to the VPC

records. The respondents/plaintiffs have further contended

that road was formed between Schedule A and B properties

and on accoun