IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.419 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAXMAMMA

SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

1. SRI SIDDAPPA

S/O LATE CHANNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

2. SRI CHIKKANNA

S/O LATE CHANNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT

SINGANAHALLI, HOSSUR HOBLI

Digitally signed GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK

by DEVIKA M CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 208

Location: HIGH

COURT OF …APPELLANTS

KARNATAKA

(BY SRI RUDRAIAH M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI GOVINDAPPA

S/O OBALAPPA

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

R/AT SINGANAHALLI VILLAGE

HOSSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561208

…RESPONDENT

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GOWRIBIDANUR 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 appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

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

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that the suit schedule property was acquired vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.1978 and the defendants without having any right, title or possession over the suit schedule property made an attempt to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the said property. Hence, filed the suit. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the averments made in the plaint is not correct and apart from that they claimed that they are in possession of the suit property and they are enjoying the same as the legal successors of one A K Chikkakadirappa who is the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and the grandfather of other defendants. That said A.K. Chikkakadirappa's first son by name Naraseeyappa has been in peaceful possession of one acre of land and that the defendants have been in peaceful possession of 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.172 of Singhanahalli village, Hossur hobli, Gowribidanur taluk. It is further contented that prior to 1983-84, all the revenue documents pertaining to Sy.No.172 were standing in the name of A.K. Chikkakadirappa by virtue of pouthi varasu and that the Khata and RTC were mutated to the name of defendant No.1 and Naraseeyappa jointly void M.R.No.62/83-84. That all the revenue documents pertaining to Sy.No.172 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas stands in the name of Naraseeyappa and defendant No.1 jointly. That the defendants are regularly paying the requisite taxes and hence, the prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4. The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint as well as in the written statement framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the admission on the part of DW1 in the class examination that his father had sold the property in the year 1978 in respect of Sy.No.172 and also taken note of the claim made by the defendants in paragraph 17. In paragraph 18, the Trial Court taken note of the admission given by DW2 that she is the second wife of Chinnappa and her name has not been mentioned in the family tree affidavit which his marked as Ex.D1. Defendant No.3 who has been examined as DW1 deposed that scheduled property was inherited by his father Chinnappa. In paragraph 19, a discussion was made that except Ex.D8 tax paid receipt pertaining to Sy.No.172 dated 24.11.2006 not produced any recent document and apart from that plaintiff also relied upon the sale deed as well as the document of RTC of 2013-14 and certified copy of mutation register bearing No.62/83-84. When DW1 categorically admits that there was a sale in favour of the plai