IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 445 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. MACHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

1(A) SMT RAMAKKA W/O LATE MACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS Digitally signed by R/AT KUTHANDAHALLI VILLAGE SUNITHA K S KASABA HOBLI Location:

HIGH COURT SIDLAGHATTA TALUK OF KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105

1(B) SMT RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SEENAPPA R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105

2. SRI BYRAREDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O CHIKKANANJAPPA R/AT KUTHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G B MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI K NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O MUNISHAMY R/AT KUTHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V K NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 7.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.136/2005 ON THE FILE OF ITINERY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 7.11.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.139/1997 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), SIDLAGHATTA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2012 passed in R.A.No.136 of 2005 by the learned Itinerary Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, and the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2005 passed in O.S.No.139 of 1997 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Sidlaghatta.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's father Munishamy acquired the suit schedule property in the auction conducted by the Government. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Sidlaghatta, issued a grant certificate in favour of the plaintiff’s father on 03.03.1952. Khata was transferred in the name of the plaintiff’s father. His father was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the plaintiff. His father had two sons namely, the plaintiff, and one Byra Reddy. The Plaintiff's father passed away about five years back prior to the filing of suit. His brother, Byra Reddy was representing the estate of their father. The plaintiff and his brother got divided the properties orally. In the said oral partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff. It is contented that the defendants are the strangers to the family of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and they are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, illegally. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, but the defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Thus, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died. His LRs were brought on record. The Legal heirs of defendant No.1 filed a written statement contending that defendant No.2 is the sister's son of Machapa i.e., defendant No.1. Defendant No.1(a) and 1(b) are the daughters of late Machapa. Defendant No.2 was brought up by late Machappa since from his childhood and pro