IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1424 OF 2024 (POS)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. B.S. KUMAR S/O LATE SANNA THIMMA BOVI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O BYRAGONDANAHALLI BOVI COLONY VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573112.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHANNABASAVAIAH S/O LATE RUDRAPPA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS Location: HIGH R/O BYRAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE COURT OF BANAVARA HOBLI KARNATAKA ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 112.

CHENGABOVI S/O LATE CANGABOVI DEAD BY HIS LRS. 2. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE CANGABOVI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

3. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

4. UMESHA S/O LATE CANGABOVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

5. SHANKARA S/O LATE CANGABOVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/O BYRAGONDANAHALLI BOVI COLONY VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 112.

6. DEVIRAPPA S/O LATE BASAVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O BYRAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK-573 112.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.19/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,ARSIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.239/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.

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 matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel appearing from the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The plaintiff in O.S. No.239/2013 while seeking the relief of possession and the sale date dated 08.12.2010 is not binding on the plaintiff has pleaded that propositor of one Hanumantha Bovi was having three children by name Hanumantha Bovi, Dodda Thimmabovi and father of plaintiff by name Sanna Thimmabovi. There was no division in the family of said Hanumantha Bovi and three sons of said Hanumantha Bovi died long back. Venkatabovi, who is the son of Hanumantha Bovi, S/o. Hanumantha Bovi and the father of the plaintiff had sold the suit schedule property in the year 1973 i.e., on 21.05.1973 without any legal necessity in favour of defendant No.3. In turn, the defendant No.3 had sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.1 on 21.11.1975 as per Ex.D5 and defendant No.1 sold the property to defendant No.2 through registered sale dated 08.12.2010. It is the contention of the plaintiff in the suit that he was a minor at the time of first sale and he was aged about 7 years and subsequently, he came to know about the subsequent sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 on 08.12.2010.

4. The defendant No.2 took the defence in the written statement that he has purchased the property from defendant No.1 and he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property. It is also contented that the property was sold in favour of defendant No.3 long back in the year 1973 and the earlier sale deed was not challenged and afterthought, the present suit is filed in the year 2013. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration and possession.

5. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P17 and examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined himself as D.W.1 and produced Exs.D1 to D11.

6. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the sale has taken place long back in the year 1973 and subsequent sale deed is challenged which was executed in 2010 and in between, there was one more sale deed in the year 1975 and sale transa