IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.781 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHIVANANJAMMA W/O LATE M LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/AT NO.39, DEVALAPURA VILLAGE

VARUNA HOBLI

MYSURU – 570 010

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI mrinal kuttappa, advocate for

Smt. LEELA P devadiga, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. JAYAMMA Digitally signed

W/O LATE ANKANNA

by DEVIKA M

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

Location: HIGH

R/AT DEVALAPURA VILLAGE

COURT OF

KARNATAKA (NEAR GURUMALLESHWARA MUTT)

VARUNA HOBLI

MYSURU – 570 010

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI BASAVANNA K M, ADVOCATE)

This RSA is FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU 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 second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that she is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.09.1987 and the same was purchased by her husband. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that she is in actual physical possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It also contended that there is an interference by the defendant. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and Court fee paid is insufficient and suit is barred by law of limitation.

4. The Trial court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, held that the very husband of the plaintiff gave the consent to change the revenue records in the name of his sister i.e., defendant. Accordingly, the suit schedule property was transferred to the name of the defendant under M.R.No.9/1991-92 and from that date, the defendant is in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interference from anybody including the plaintiff and her husband. However, the husband of the plaintiff had challenged the revenue entries subsequently, filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner having secured the records for transfer of property in favour of the defendant comes to the conclusion that the husband of the plaintiff himself gave the consent and records also reveals the same. Based on the consent only property got transferred in the name of the defendant and dismissed the appeal in the year 1999 itself. The order of the Assistant Commissioner is not challenged and the same has attained its finality. Thus, all the revenue records stands in the name of the defendant. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that when the consent is given to transfer of the property in favour of the defendant, that too he voluntarily appeared and given consent to transfer the property in favour of the defendant, considering the case of the plaintiff does not arise and answer Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is also not in possession of the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal is preferred before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.4/2023.

5. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the Points and having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the appellant has not proved her case particularly taking into note of the documents of Ex.D4 to D21 and First