IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2100 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SANNARAMEGOWDA S/O LATE MOOGEGOWDA @

RAMEGOWDA @ MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT BONTHAGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPTNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.R. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SANNAHYDEGOWDA @ HELAVAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKARAMEGOWDA @ CHIKKARAMAIH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI

2. SMT. SANNAMARAMMA B Location: High W/O LATE MADIAH, Court of AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Karnataka

3. SRI. MADAPPA S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

4. SRI SIDDARAJU S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.257/2021 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.503/2014 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL, II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Harsha Kumar Gowda H.R., learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents having regard to the limited question to be decided in the appeal.

3. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.503/2014 confirmed in R.A.No.257/2021.

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4.1 A suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' for short) came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the partition that took place between the father of the plaintiff and father of the defendants vide Ex.P11.

SCHEDULE Landed property bearing Sy.No.590/2, situated at Harohalli Village, Varuna Hobli, mysuru Taluk, measuring

20 guntas out of one acre, and bounded on:

East by : Land of Makegowda West by : Road North by : Land of Karimadaiah South by : Land of Ramegowda.

5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that they having sold their portion of 0-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.590/2 of Harohalli Vilalge, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk, fallen to his share. Defendants are unnecessarily interfering with the suit property having sold their 0-20 guntas of the land in the same survey number.

6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants did not contest the suit and they were placed ex parte.

7. Based on the documents placed on record in the oral evidence of the plaintiff marked at Exs.P1 to P11 which are certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.09.2000, certified copies of the RTC Extracts, certified copies of the Mutation Register Extract, tax paid receipts and Palu Parikattu dated 10.02.1975.

8. Learned Trial Judge raised necessary points and taking note of the fact that in Ex.P11, there are no boundaries shown in the plaint, suit schedule properties shown with the boundaries which did not tally with the other material documents placed on record by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.257/2021 with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to place additional evidence on record.

10. Respondents in the said appeal being the defendants opposed the appeal grounds.

11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after raising necessary points, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff inter-alia holding in paragraphs No.25 to 29 as under:

"25 Though, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P11, the said partition deed dated 10.02.1975, but there is no corroborative or supportive do