IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.963 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SUBBALAKSHAMAMMA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, W/O. LATE PUTTARAMAIAH

2. SRI KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE PUTTARAMAIAH

3. SMT. DEEPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O. LATE PUTTARAMAIAH Digitally signed 4. SMT. CHANDRAKALA, by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Location: HIGH D/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH COURT OF KARNATAKA

5. SRI JAYARAMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE PUTTARAMAIAH

6. SMT. KAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O. LATE PUTTARAMAIAH ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK – 571 427 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI ARAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHIVANNA

2. SMT. JAYALAXMI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O. ARAKAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK – 571 427 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A. NO.27/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA AND ETC.

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 filed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit and confirming the same by the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration to declare that sale deed dated 09.08.1972 as null and void and consequential relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property, it is contended that suit schedule property is a vacant site which was originally granted to the father of the plaintiff by name Kondaiah by then Kyathanahalli Panchayath through Hakku Patra dated 01.01.1963 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime. Father of the plaintiff died on 30.04.1973. After the death of the Kondaiah, the katha of the suit schedule property was changed into the name of the mother of the plaintiff. After her death, plaintiff became the owner and he is in possession of the suit schedule property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. It is further stated that partition taken place between the plaintiff and his brother – Jayaramu and the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of the plaintiff. But the katha in respect to the suit schedule property stands in the name of his brother-Jayaramu since he is the elder member of the family. It is also contented that even though the defendants have no right, title and interest much less possession in or over the suit schedule property are trying to interfere with possession of the property and hence sought for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

4. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff recently came to know that defendants have created some panchayat documents into the name of the second defendant colluding with the panchayat officials on the basis of the created document and also there was some litigation between the first defendant and the elder brother of the plaintiff without his knowledge. It is also contented that the first defendant is claiming the suit schedule property on the basis of the created void sale deed dated 09.08.1972 executed in favour of the grandfather of first defendant by name Sannashetty illegally by playing fraud on the father of the plaintiff against the conditions imposed by the granting authority and by mentioning the wrong boundary. It is also contented that suit schedule property should not be alienated within 20 years. But before the expiry of the stipula