IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. YOGESH KUMAR S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT OLD KADIVANAKATTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

Digitally 2. SRI JAYASIMHA signed by S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, SUNITHA K S AGED ABOUT 26 YEAR, Location: STUDENT, HIGH COURT RESIDING AT OLD KADIVANAKATTE VILLAGE, OF KASABA HOBLI, KARNATAKA HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.H..VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE (NOC)

AND:

1. SRI. GIDDAIAH S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

2. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O HOLIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

3. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O NINGAJJA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4. SRI. SHIVAMURTHY S/O MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O KUNDUR, GOLLARAHATTI KASABA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S C VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 &

R4 (NOC VK) )

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 8.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2008 ON THE FILE OF ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOSADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.12.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.128/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HOSADURGA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGEMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2012 passed in R.A.No.12/2008 by the learned Itinerary Senior Civil Judge, Hosadurga, and the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed in O.S.No. 128 of 2005 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hosadurga.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that they are the owners, and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants etc., from encroaching the suit schedule property and interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with costs.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the owners and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they have inherited the same. According to them, their great grandfather namely Patel Narayanappa s/o Muthappa had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.1945, and on the strength of the said sale deed, khata was changed in the name of senior uncle of the plaintiffs namely Yellappa S/o Govindappa. At the time of family arrangements during 1981-82 in between the sons of Govindappa, namely Yellappa, Laxmanappa and Krishnamurthy, the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiffs’ father, and recently the plaintiffs and their father divided their joint family properties, and at that time, the suit property had been allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. According to them, they are the owners and in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is contended that the defendants are strangers to the family and have no right, title, interest or possession over the same. The defendants have denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for a declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the original propositus of the defendants by name Donne Eranna had two sons