IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.951 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI K.M. CHINNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE: 562110.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD E., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M

2. SRI K.H. ANJINAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA, KARNATAKA AGED 65 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE: 562110.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

NOTICE TO R-1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15048/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 5^TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.454/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Court, while admitting the appeal on

05.08.2020, has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in not framing the issue of limitation while recording a finding on the said aspect while decreeing the suit?”

2. During the course of the argument, this Court framed additional substantial question of law on

06.03.2026, which reads as under:

“Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction, which is based on the registered a sale deed dated 05.12.1990, on the ground that defendant No.2 had no exclusive right to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff, as the suit property was held to be the ancestral joint family property?”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents are heard on the substantial questions of law framed by this Court.

4. The present regular second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2020 passed in R.A. No.15048/2019 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, (‘First Appellate Court’ for short), confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2017 in O.S. No.454/2009 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (‘Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

Plaint averments

5. The plaintiff states that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property bearing in Survey No.15/2 measuring 25 guntas, situated at Kempathimmanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. It is stated that the property was purchased under the registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1990 executed by defendant No.2. Pursuant to the Sale Deed, mutation entries were made in his name and he was cultivating the land. It is stated that the plaintiff drilled a bore well, installed a pump set and grown crops on the property. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that defendants in collusion with the revenue authorities obtained an order from the Assistant Commissioner in RA No.35/2003-2004 resulting in mutation entries in their name. It is stated by the plaintiff that the said order was obtained behind his back and without notice and the same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in revision proceedings. The said revision petition has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted that when the defendants tried to interfere with