IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NIJALINGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. SMT.LAKSHMAKKA W/O NIJALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NEJANTHI VILLAGE, HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI LAKSHMIPATHI, D G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BALAGANGADHAR G S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SMT PARVATHAMMA PRAMILA G V W/O KENCHAPPA, Location: DEAD BY LRS HIGH COURT OF

1(a) SMT BHAGYAMMA, KARNATAKA W/O PATHALINGAPPA, D/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O JAVAREHALLI, BAGERAHALLI POST, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

1(b) SMT RATHNAMMA, W/O JAYANNA, D/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O MALLAPPANAHATTI POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

1(c) SRI LINGARAJ, S/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O BETTAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

1(d) SMT RENUKAMMA, W/O THIPPESWAMY, D/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O ERAGANAHALLI, PATHAGANAHALLI POST, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

1(e) SMT KAVITHAMMA, W/O THIPPESWAMY, D/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MALLAPPANAHATTI, MALLAPPANAHATTI POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 21.06.2022)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(C), R1(A) SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(D) IS HELD SUFFICIENT AND SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(B AND E) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.65/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIRA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017 in O.S. No.65/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sira.

2. In terms of the said judgment and decree, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction is decreed. The plaintiff is declared as the owner of the property and defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. The plaintiff is the mother and defendant No.1 is the son. Defendant No.2 is the daughter-in-law. The plaintiff claims that she acquired the property from her father. The defendant No.1 claimed that, after the demise of plaintiff's father, the property records were transmitted in his name during his minority represented by minor guardian, father. And after defendant No.1 attaining majority, his name continued in the property records. And before filing of the suit, defendant No.1 has transferred the property in favour of his wife - defendant No.2. Thus, it is asserted that the defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court rejected the contention and held that the plaintiff has title over the property and possession of the defendants No.1 and 2 is not established. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is in possession and granted the decree as prayed for.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants are before this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/

appellants would urge that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'Act, 1963') would disentitle the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration without appropriate relief of possession and the Trial Court ignored the long standing entries in the property records which carried the presumption in favour of the defendants to hold that the defendants are in possession and when the possession of the