IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN:

M.C. CHANNABASAVAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS

1(a) M.C. SHASHIDAR, AGED BOUT 42 YEARS, S/O M.C. CHENNABASAVAIAH, 1(b) SAVITHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O M.C. CHENNABASAVAIAH, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MYSURAPPANAPALYA, Digitally signed HANDANAKERE HOBLI, by KIRAN CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ, KUMAR R TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

Location: HIG H COURT OF …APPELLANTS KARNATAKA (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHIVANNA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS

1(a) SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O SHIVANNA, RESIDING AT MYSURAPPANAPALYA, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.

1(b) SMT. PREMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O KUMARAIAH, D/O SHIVANNA, RESIDING AT HARACHANAHALLI, THIMLAPURA POST, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 217.

2. M.S. VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA, R/O MYSURAPPANAPALYA, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 202.

…RESPONDENTS (BY P'PSD R1(a)- SERVED;

V/O.DTD.18.02.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT IN R/O R1(b);

V/O.DTD.12/02/2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 5.12.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10006/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 11.1.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.12/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ITINERATE COURT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2013 passed in R.A. No.10006 of 2013 by the learned 5^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, and the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2013 passed in O.S. No.12 of 2008 by the learned Itinerate Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

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

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Nanjamma was the original propositus and that Nanjamma had three sons, namely Marulappa, Chikkanna and Nanjaiah. They got divided all the family properties under an oral partition and since from the date of oral partition, the brothers are enjoying their respective properties.

5. Plaintiff No.1 is the son of Nanjaiah and plaintiff No.2 is the grandson of Nanjaiah. The suit schedule properties were assigned to plaintiff No.1 and got entered the revenue entries in his name, and enjoying the same by paying the property tax. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties, and denied the title of the plaintiffs’ ownership of the suit schedule properties and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that a partition was effected between the three children of Nanjamma and in the said partition, Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties to the extent of 2 acres was allotted to the share of defendant and the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs are not the absolute owners of the entire Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit. The cause of action shown in the plaint is fals