IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.240 OF 2024 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT CHIKKAMMA W/O LAT BEERANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

2. PUSHPALATHA D/O LATE BEERANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

3. CHANDRAKUMARI D/O LATE BEERANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.954, KALIDASA ROAD, NAYAKARA BEEDHI, Digitally signed H.D.KOTE TOWN AND TALUK by DEVIKA M MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114.

Location: HIGH …APPELLANTS COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. THIMMANAYAKA S/O CHIKKABEERANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT HANUMANTHANAGARA HOSABADAVANE METIKUPPE ROAD H.D.KOTE TOWN AND TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114.

2. SMT. DEVALAMMA W/O ALTE HUCHHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

3. SMT. DEVAMANI W/O LATE PARASUMANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

4. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE HUCHHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SL.NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KALIDASA ROAD NAYAKARA BEEDHI, H.D. KOTE TOWN AND TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.09.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.192/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HEGGADADEVANAKOTE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs while seeking the relief of declaration and possession before the Trial Court is that suit schedule property originally belonged to one late Huchanaika, working as School Jawan, which was granted to him by the Government during 1926-27 i.e., dated 12.06.1925. During his lifetime, he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. However after his death, the property got mutated in the name of mother of the first defendant vide mutation order No.39/08-09 dated 21.10.2008, which is not correct and made in collusion with the revenue officials. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.127/2 to the extent of 1.36 acres, out of total extent of 6.27 acres. It is contended that the defendants are totally strangers and further contend that defendants are in possession of the suit property which is illegal and plaintiffs approached them on 05.08.2009 and demanded to handover the property to them. The defendants denied the ownership of the plaintiffs and refused to handover the possession. Hence, filed the suit for declaration and possession.

3. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the ownership and also the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and further contend that it is the ancestral property of the defendants. The suit schedule property was granted to grand-father of first defendant-Huchanaika. It is further claimed that Puttanaika @ Huchanaika was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have instituted two suits one in O.S.No.156/2009 against one Thimmamma in respect of Sy.No.127/1 and another in O.S.No.187/2009 with respect to the instant suit schedule property against Beeranaika and five others for the relief of permanent injunction. Both the suits are filed before this Court. The defendants further claim that suit schedule property stands in the name of paternal aunt of first defendant. Amongst other grounds, the defendants prays for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court having framed the issues, allowed the parties to lead evidence and even additional issue is also framed whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration with respect to suit schedule property and he is entitled for consequential relief. The Trial Court having considered the material available