IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1452 OF 2022 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN:

1. NARGIS W/O LATE B MOHAMMED ISAQ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

2. KUM. MONA D/O LATE B MOHAMMED ISAQ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

3. SALAUDDIN S/O LATE B MOHAMMED ISAQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS APPELLANTS ARE R/O Digitally signed BHANDIGADI VILLAGE AND POST by DEVIKA M KOPPA TALUK-577126 Location: HIGH CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT COURT OF APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE REP.

KARNATAKA BY THEIR GPA HOLDER AND THIRD APPELLANT SALAUDDIN …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SWETHA W/O LATE S PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O SHANKARAMANE HALAMATTHUR VILLAGE AND POST KOPPA TALUK-577126 CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GANGI REDDY B V, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., N.R. PURA, ITINERATE AT KOPPA 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 is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and suit schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ properties are the part and parcel of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and hence, she is entitled for possession of suit ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties from the defendant. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that phodi sketches in respect of the suit schedule properties are at variance with the survey sketches and also it is the contention of the defendants that they have purchased the property to the extent of 2 acres including 2 guntas of karab land which is part and parcel of Sy.No.13.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and also allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, held that the plaintiff already filed a suit for permanent injunction to the extent of what she has purchased. When the relief is sought for declaration and possession, Commissioner was also appointed by the Trial Court and Commissioner also submitted the report and objection was also filed to the said report. The Commissioner was also examined before for the Trial Court as CW1. The report of the Commissioner is very clear that even though the defendants are having 2 acres of land including 2 guntas of Karab land, they are in possession to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas. When such material is available, in paragraphs 30 to 32, the Trial Court in detail discussed the same. Apart from that already phodi work was done and the said phodi also not challenged by the defendants except stating that phodi work is false and nothing was placed on record to substantiate their contention. Hence, the Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points and having re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in paragraph 37 taking note of the Commissioner's report, held that the extent of land of the appellants is only to the extent of 2 acres including 2 guntas of karab land but they are in possession to the extent of 3 acres 10 guntas. Such being the case, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the s