HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)

C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ)

IN RFA No. 869/2010 BETWEEN:

1. SMT RUKMINI SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LRs

1(A) ANJANAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 78 YEARS 1(B) SMT. UMA W/O VENKATESH AGED 48 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1091 Digitally signed 23^RD MAIN ROAD, 23^RD CROSS by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-2 COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 102.

1(C) PRASANTH .A S/O ANJANAPPA AGED 46 YEARS R/AT NO. 99, 28^TH MAIN ROAD

18^TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-2, BENGALURU-560 102.

1(D) RAVINDRA .A S/O ANJANAPPA AGED 44 YEARS HC-KAR R/AT NO.19, 26^TH MAIN NEAR HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1 BENGALURU-560 102.

[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O/D 07.09.2023]

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR LRs OF APPELLANT)

AND:

1. SRI. J. THRILOKA MURTHY S/O LATE JAYRAM AGED 56 YEARS R/AT PANNATHUR VILLAGE PANNATHUR POST, BANGALORE-560087.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.666/1992 ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

IN RFA NO. 1180/2009 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. D. PREMA KUMARI W/O LATE P.M.VENKATESH AGE 59 YEARS R/A PANATHUR VILLAGE & POST VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE DIST.-560068 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

HC-KAR AND:

1. SRI. J. THRILOKA MURTHY S/O P.M. DELLANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A PANNATHUR VILLAGE & POST BANGALORE - 560 087.

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W ORDER XXI RULE 103 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.666/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-38), BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal in RFA No.869/2010 is filed by defendant No.3 and the appeal in RFA No.1180/2009 is filed by defendant No.2. Both these appeals are filed by the alleged sisters of plaintiff questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.666/1992, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title, possession and HC-KAR consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been partly decreed. The trial Court has answered the issue relating to the plaintiff’s alleged adoption in the affirmative and has granted declaratory relief to that extent, which finding is assailed in this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred to in accordance with their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties as he is the legally adopted son of late P.M. Devanna and the first defendant. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

HC-KAR

4. The foundation of the plaintiff’s claim is a declaration allegedly executed by P.M. Devanna, wherein the plaintiff is described as his adopted son. The entire case of the plaintiff rests substantially upon the said declaration.

5. In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of deceased P.M. Devanna. He has candidly admitted that his natura