IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. KALAMMA W/O GOVINDEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

1(A) K.G. MANJE GOWDA Digitally sign ed by S/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA SUNITHA K S AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Location:

HIGH COURT R/AT KANAGAL VILLAGE OF KARNATAKA HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571107 MYSURU DISTRICT.

2. SMT K G PADMA D/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A BETTADAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107 MYSORE DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A LOURDU MARIYAPPA &

SRI. VENKATESH C.R., ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. SRI SOMEGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

2. SHANTHEGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A KANAGAL VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107 MYSORE DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNEEL S NARAYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.06/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), JMFC, PERIYAPATNA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 08.01.2013 passed in R.A.No. 6 of 2010 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna, and the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.53 of 2000 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Periyapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and the respondents were the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff.

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

4. The original plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the declaration, to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contented that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the same was inherited by him from his ancestors. It is contented that his name was entered in the revenue records. The defendant is his son-in-law, who is naturally unrelated to the suit schedule property. During the last week of March 2000, when the original plaintiff visited to the suit schedule property to carry on the agricultural operations, the defendant, with his supporters, obstructed the agricultural operations and denied the title over the same, and made hectic efforts to dispossess the original plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The defendant has got concocted the revenue records behind the back of the original plaintiff and created the revenue records in his favour. Taking advantage of the illegal entries during 1999-2000, the defendant tried to alienate the same to one Shivappashetty. It is also contended that the defendant has denied the title of the original plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence a cause of action arose for him to file a suit for declaration of title and possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that the suit schedule property originally fell to the share of his maternal grandfather Adavigowda, who was the uncle of the plaintiff. The said Adavigowda, had no male issues, but had two daughters by name Javaramma and Mariamma, who is also the mother of the defendant. The suit schedule property was fell to the share o