IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1678 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. VENKATESHA BHOVI S/O CHIKKARAMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

2. SRI LINGARAJA BHOVI S/O CHIKKARAMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

3. SRI MAHESH S/O CHIKKARAMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

4. SRI RAMESH S/O CHIKKARAMA BHOVI Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH ALL ARE RESIDING AT COURT OF RAMANAGAR VILLAGE KARNATAKA SANTHESHIVARA POST, NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-577 215.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. N.B. SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT NERALAKERE VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-577 215.

…RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.06.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.17/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.189/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Trial Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction claiming that the property 3 acres was purchased by the plaintiff from one Chikkarama Bhovi son of Doddarama Bhovi vide sale deed dated 29.10.2001 and property also transferred in favour of the plaintiff as per M.R.No.6/2001- 02 and accordingly plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants have no right to enter over the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with suit schedule property and hence, panchayat was held. Panchayathdars have also advised the defendants not to interfere with possession of plaintiff and plaintiff has also lodged the complaint. But, the police have not taken any action and hence filed the suit. On the other hand defendants have filed the written statement contending that suit schedule property was granted to the defendants father Chikkarama Bhovi son of Doddarama Bhovi vide grant dated 19.12.1985. After the grant, plaintiff’s father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the defendant’s father was uneducated by taking the undue advantage of the defendant’s father, the plaintiff has got created the fraudulent sale deed dated 30.10.2001 from Chikarama Bhovi. The defendants are very poor persons and not having any other landed property and defendant's father died on 19.05.2015. Hence, the sale deed executed is void as per the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978. Hence, plaintiff prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

3. The Trial court having considered the grounds which have been urged, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. Apart from that examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the other hand defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the possession and the possession is with him. The defendants relied upon mainly the document of Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The document at Ex.D.2 is the letter written by Tahasildar to the Assistant Commissioner and letter sent by Tahasildar which discloses that as per the revenue inspector's report, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. But, looking into the document produced by the defendants, it clearly discloses that the suit schedule property was granted to defendants and