IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2019 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI ARECHANDRAPPA S/O NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHATTENAHALLI HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 121.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. J. ARAVIND BABU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUTHANNA Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS by PANKAJA S R/A CHATTENAHALLI VILLAGE Location: HIGH COURT OF HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KARNATAKA KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 121.

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.54/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MADHUGIRI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.95/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC KORATAGERE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal is by the defendant.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant seeking to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the propositus Arechandarappa had five sons namely Beeranna, Chikkanna, Naganna (father of defendant), Adavanna and Kariyanna. Beeranna had two sons namely Muttanna and Doddaiah. Chikkanna had two sons namely Arechandarappa (defendant) and Naganna. Adavanna had a son namely Muttanna (husband of plaintiff) who was mentally retarded person and wandering in the village. After death of Arechandarappa, his sons divided the suit schedule properties orally and subsequently, a Palupatti dated 19.04.1981 came into existence. In the partition, the suit schedule properties along with other properties were allotted to fourth son Adavanna i.e., father-in-law of the plaintiff. During the time of division, Adavanna was not alive, hence his share was given to Naganna i.e. the third son of Arechandrappa. In the meantime, Muttanna s/o Adavanna was unheard due to his mental weakness and there was also a recital in the partition that, if Muttanna returns to the village, he has to be put in possession of the property allotted to his share. With such understanding, the possession of the suit schedule properties was given to defendant's father - Naganna by way of permissive possession.

4. After, couple of years, said Muttanna returned to the village and his share of properties were handed over to him. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Later, the said Muttanna died in the year 1995 leaving behind his wife (plaintiff) as his sole legal heir.

5. Things stood thus, the plaintiff after her marriage with Muttanna came to know that a Will has been executed by her husband on 24.08.1981 in respect of suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant. However, the same was cancelled on 08.08.1990 and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, after the death of her husband, the defendant has got changed the revenue entries with respect to suit schedule properties on the strength of the Will dated 24.08.1981, though the same was cancelled subsequently. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

6. On service of summons, defendant appeared and filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint by contending that at the time of partition, Muttanna (husband of the plaintiff) was sound and was not in the village, as such, his share was given to the defendant on condition that the same shall be handed over to Muttanna once he returns to the Village. Accordingly, when Muttanna return