Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2025:KHC:40017

RSA No. 1075 of 2009

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:
SRI. G.K. MAHADEVA
S/O KARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
GANDHANAHALLY,
HOSAGRAHARA HOBLI,
K. R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H. KANTHARAJA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:
SRI. G.S. BEEREGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
1(A). G.B. KALALINGAMMA,.
W/O LAE SHANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O, KAMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOUSUR KALAHALLIPOST,
K R NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602.
1(B). G.B. RENUKA
W/O LATE RAMEHA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O. HADGUR VILLAGE
KALIKERGERE POST
K R NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 601.
1(C). G.B. MEENAKSHI
W/O LATE BALU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O, SONNEGOWDA COLONY
RATHNAPURI POST, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 189.
1(D). G.B. SAROJA
W/O GANGADHAR
AGED ABUT 49 YEARS
R/O, KURUBARA BATHI
BUKUNKERE HOBLI
MAVINKERE POST
K R PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812.
1(E). G.B. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
LATE. G.S. BEERE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O, GANDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
& POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 603.
1(F). G.B. RAVISHNAKARA
AGED ABOUT 65YEARS
LATE. BEEREGOWDA
R/O, GANDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
& POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 603.
1(G). G.B. JAYARAMEGOWDA
LATE. BEEREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O, GANDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
& POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 603.
1(H). G.B. KUMARA,
LATE. BEEREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O, GANDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
& POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 603.
1(I). G.B. MANJUNATH,
LATE. BEEREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O, GANDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
& POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 603.
1(J). SUMITHRA
W/O LATE. G.B. NAGARJAEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O, GANDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
& POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 603.
1(K). TILAK PRASAD,
LATE. G.B. NAGARJAEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O, GANDHANAHALLI VILLAGE
& POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 603.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS
PER ORDER DATED: 23.10.2024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO J)
R1(K) - SD/-)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI. H. KANTHARAJA, SR. ADVOCATE, SRI. RAVI H.K.
For the Respondents: SRI. A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA

A will executed by a testator establishes property title if supported by credible evidence, and appellate courts must not overturn trial findings without sufficient justification.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against First Appellate Court’s judgment - The plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction over property based on a registered Will executed by the testator. The First Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court's decree, erroneously concluding ownership without substantiating evidence. The court emphasized that substantial evidence existed proving the testator's ownership and the validity of the Will. (Paras 1, 6, 7, 18)

(B) Evidence - The court found strong corroborative evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim including revenue records and witness testimonies which the First Appellate Court overlooked. (Paras 10, 14, 17)

(C) Appellate Review - The judgment of the First Appellate Court was deemed perverse for ignoring crucial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings. (Paras 18)

Findings of Court:
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence confirming his title to the property based on the Will, leading to the restoration of the original decree.

Result: Appeal allowed and the original judgment and decree restored, confirming title and injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD: 06.06.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) & JMFC, K.R.NAGAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 09.08.1996 PASSED IN OS.184/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner being the plaintiff in OS.No.184/1992 on the file of the learned Munsiff and JMFC, K.R.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is impugning the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2009 passed in RA No.22/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, K.R.Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court) where under, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 09.08.1996 passed by the Trial Court was set-aside and consequently, the suit in OS.No.184/1992 filed by the appellant for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.184/1992 against the defendant before the Trial Court contending that, the suit schedule property i.e., the mangalore tiled house is situated in Gandhanahalli, measuring 26 by 40 feet with vacant site measuring 9 by 15 feet. Khata No.162, assessment No.214 with the boundaries mentioned therein originally belonged to one Poojari Chikkegowda, the grandfather of the plaintiff. The said Poojari Chikkegowda, being the absolute owner in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, bequeathed the same in favour of the plaintiff by executing the registered Will dated 30.01.1985. Till the death of testator-Poojari Chikkegowda, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property in question and after his death, it is the plaintiff, who is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property consisting of a tiled house and the vacant site. It is the contention of plaintiff that, the defendant being the brother of testator Poojari Chikkegowda, started interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and therefore, filed the suit seeking declaration of his title based on registered Will, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

4. The defendant has appeared before the Court and filed his written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is denied that Poojari Chikkegowda had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff. The description of the schedule property is also denied. It is contended by the defendant that, he is the brother of Poojari Chikkegowda referred to by the plaintiff. He along with Poojari Chikkegowda constructed the house in the schedule property, and they were living together about 30 years ago. They got divided the suit schedule property orally. The western half portion was allotted to the share of Poojari Chikkegowda and the Eastern half portion was allotted to the share of the defendant. Since then, Poojari Chikkegowda was enjoying the western half portion, while the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the eastern half portion. Therefore it is contented that, Poojari Chikkegowda had no absolute right and title over the schedule property and he could not have executed the Will bequeathing the property in favour of plaintiff. As a result, it is contented that the plaintiff had not acquired any title over the schedule property and he is not entitled for any relief.

5. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were framed.

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the late Karigowda was in sound disposing mind while bequeathing the plaint schedule property, in his favour under a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document