IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI A.C. BASAVARAJU

S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST

AVATHI HOBLI

CHIKAMAGALURU TALUK &

DISTRICT-577101

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI H MALATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. B.A. SANDHYA

Digitally signed

by DEVIKA M W/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @ Location: HIGH LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA

COURT OF AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

KARNATAKA

2. SRI N M CHARAN

S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @ LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SRI N M NIKETHAN

S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA @ LATE P MANJUNATHGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

4. SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 5. SRI A C POORNESH S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST AVATHI HOBLI CHIKAMAGALURU TALUK &

DISTRICT-577101 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU 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 First Appellate Court.

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

3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and also they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit but the defendants have started to interfere with their possession over the suit schedule property. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.2 appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit property was granted to late Chennegowda under Saguvali Chit dated 27.07.1965 and thereafter the said grant was confirmed on 19.03.1978. After the death of Chennegowda, his legal heirs have executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 13.05.1994 for valid consideration and delivered all the title deeds to him.

Subsequently, the katha was changed to his name. The property was a vacant land at the time of execution of the sale deed. Subsequently, this defendant has cultivated this property with coffee and also planted areca with silver oaks. It is contended that the plaintiffs with an intention to make wrongful gain have filed this false suit suppressing all the material facts. The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and averments made in the plaint are only with an intention to knock off the suit property. The boundaries given in the plaint is also wrong. The Government has made correspondence with this defendant to exchange the government land i.e., Sy.No.164/2, measuring 5 acres to the hiduvali land of this defendant. The Government with an assurance of grant in favour of this defendant has constructed school building, Panchayath office and playground. The grant of land in the name of this defendant is in progress. The plaintiffs with an intention to disturb the process of grant, have filed the false suit.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and also allowed the parties to lead their evidence. Plaintiff No.3 examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D9 and other defendants have not contested the matter. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record held that sale was made in the year 1994 itself and suit was filed in the year 2016 that too a sale deed was executed by the legal representatives of Chennegowda including plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The GPA is also produced at Ex.D1 and the same is not disputed.