IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.624 OF 2008 (RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. GANAPATH SHATTU MAYANAGOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1A. SRI. ANUSAYA W/O. GANAPAT PATIL MAYANGOUDA, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO.202, HANDIGANUR VILLAGE-591143, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

1B. MRS. MANGALA HINDURAO DHAMANE AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. HOUSE NO.204, RAJA HOUSING SOCIETY, Digitally SAKHARAM COMPLEX, signed by YASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR KOPAR ROAD, DOMBIVALI, NARAYANKAR Date:

2025 .11.28 THANE-421202, MAHARASHTRA.

10:40:03 +0530

1C. MR. SHASHIKANT S/O. GANAPAT PATIL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED, R/O. HOUSE NO. C 104, CHANDRESH NIKETAN, LODHA COMPLEX, GOLDEN NEST, MIRA ROAD EAST, THANE-401107, MAHARASHTRA.

1D. MR. RAJESH S/O. GANAPAT PATIL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED, R/O. HOUSE NO.104, AMBER DEV BUILDING, NANDIVALI ROAD, OPP. LAXMIKANT HOTEL, SAMARTH NAGAR, DOMBIVALI EAST, KALIAN-421204, MAHARASHTRA, …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. RAMACHANDRA YALLAPPA MAYANAGOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANDIGANUR, TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

2. SRI. ANNAPPA YALLAPPA MAYANAGOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANDIGANUR, TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.V. ITAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2-NOTICE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2008 IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.41/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BELAGAVI, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.751/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI AND DISMISSING THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COST THROUGH OUT.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI )

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The plaintiff, who suffered the reversal of the judgment of the Trial Court at the hands of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.41/2005 is before this Court in appeal.

3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be summarized as below:

a) The suit property happens to be Sy.No.3/1 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Handiganoor Village. The said property was purchased under a sale deed dated 18.02.1963 by father of the plaintiff. It was contented that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of the sale deed and after the demise of his father, the property has devolved upon the plaintiff.

b) The defendants are the relatives of the plaintiff and they are the owners of Sy.No.3/2, adjoining the suit property on the eastern side.

c) The plaintiff alleged that the defendants without any right, title or interest have illegally encroached and occupied a portion of 5 ft east-west and 25 ft north-south in 1 acre 22 guntas of land belonging to the plaintiff during October 2002. It was contented that the plaintiff and his family members resisted the illegal acts, but they did not heed to the same. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit seeking a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property shown in the hand sketch, which is part of Sy.No.3/1 and consequential relief that the defendants be directed to remove any encroachment in the property of the plaintiff and demolish the illegal constructions made by them.

d) On service of summons, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. They contended that they were owners of Sy.No.3/2 to the extent of 21 guntas and it was granted to them by the Land Tribunal. They contended that when the plaintiff admits that the defendants are the owners of Sy.No.3/2 measuring 21 guntas and their names were entered in the reve