IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.321 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

ATTALE SIDDA SHETTY S/O LATE RACHA SHETTY AGED 69 YEARS CHENNIPURADAMALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMRAJANAGARA TALUK AN DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SMT. P C VINITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARUMBAIAH T A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

RATHNAMMA Digitally signed W/O LATE SHIVANNA by DEVIKA M AGED 30 YEARS Location: HIGH R/AT CHENNIPURADAMOLE COURT OF KARNATAKA VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTIRCT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.08/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGARA 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

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule property to the extent of 19 guntas is an ancestral property. Out of that 19 guntas, sold 2½ guntas of ‘A’ schedule property to one Sri H.R. Sreenivasa Murthy through a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2001 and 10 guntas of ‘B’ schedule property was sold to one Sri B Ravindranatha Reddy through a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2007 and remaining 6½ guntas of ‘C’ schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff. Recently, on durasthi work, it came to know that 5 guntas of land was encroached by the defendants which is morefully described as ‘D’ schedule property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. In response to the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement contending that the entire land of 19 guntas was already sold in the year 1951 itslef. Thus, the question of granting the relief of declaration and possession does not arise.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings as well as defence made by the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that originally the property was purchased by Basavashetty S/o Rachashetty in the year 1946 and subsequently, the very same extent of 19 guntas of land was sold in terms of Ex.D1. But the plaintiff got the property mutated in his favour in terms of Ex.P10 without any basis and there is no recital that how the ancestors of plaintiff got the suit schedule property. But the plaintiff contend that subsequently, he also sold some portion of the property and now, claiming to the extent of 6½ guntas and out of that 6½ guntas, 5 guntas are in the possession of the defendants. The Trial Court taken note of Ex.P16 as well as Ex.D1 and also the admission on the part of PW1 wherein he says that he is not aware of anything about Ex.D1. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that the said document is of the year 1951 and the same is a registered document and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any case to declare that plaintiff is the absolute owner. Hence, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.8/2017.

5. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Points that whether the Trial Court failed to appreciate the admissions of defendant in the cross examination regarding ownership, possession and encroachment which has been supported by documentary evidence and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and whether it requires interference of the First Ap