IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.651 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

R. BASAVARAJ, S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O MODUR VILLAGE, PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 501.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally 1. SANNAPAPAIAH, sig ned by AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, SUNITHA K S Location:

2. LASUMAIAH, HIGH CO URT OF AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, KARNATAKA

3. BODI RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 4. KODAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 5. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, ALL ARE SONS OF LATE RANGAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF MODUR VILLAGE, PARASHURAMPURA VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 501.

6. SMT. PALAMMA, W/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 7. SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, S/O. LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 8. SRI. D. PRAKASH, S/O. LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF BELLIBATTLU, VILLAGE, NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 562 102.

…RESPONDENTS (R6,R2,R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED;

V/O. DATED 10.08.2016, NOTICE TO R8 HELD SUFFICIENT;

V/O. DATED 19.03.2019, APPEAL AGAINST R1, R5 AND R7 STANDS ABATED)

THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 11.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.4.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.80/2002 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, 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 appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.40 of 2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere, and the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2012 passed in O.S.No. 80 of 2002 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Challakere.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration and a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Survey Nos. 4 and 6 of Modur Kaval village are the properties of his father, and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The land bearing Survey Nos.4 and 6 measuring 8 acres 1 gunta was sold by the plaintiff’s father in favour of one Hanumanthappa under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1951. At the time of the sale transaction, in survey No.6 about 1 acre of land was retained by the father of the plaintiff, accordingly, the mutation was effected. The said Hanumanthappa sold the properties in favour of third persons under a sale deed dated 03.10.1951. It is contended that one acre of land was retained by the father of the plaintiff and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death, and after his demise the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. The plaintiff explained the situation of the land in the rough sketch annexed to the plaint. Defendants 1 to 5 claim that they have purchased the complete plaint land in Survey No. 6 including the suit schedule land. The plaintiff tried to convince the defendants by showing the document, however, the defendants did not care for the same, and claim that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and making hectic efforts to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant Nos.6 and 7 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the father of defendant Nos.7 and 8 and husband of defend