IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. RUDRESH S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. JAGADESH S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. PRAKASH S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, Di gitally AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, signed by SUNITHA K S

4. MAHESHWARAPPA Location:

HIGH COU RT S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, OF AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KARNATAKA ALL ARE R/AT CHILUR VILLAGE, KUMBAR STREET, CHILUR POST, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DT PIN-577230 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND S PATIL, ADV.)

AND:

1. K. SUSHEELA W/O C.KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. PUSHPAVATHI K W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

2(A) SRI D.MANJAPPA S/O LATE D.DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

2(B) SRI RAGHAVENDRA M S/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.LIG HOUSE No.1 KHB COLONY, GANDHINAGAR, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-DT-577401

3. MANJUNATHA K S/O LATE KADASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 R/AT GANDHINAGAR SAGAR-AT/TQ, SHIMOGA-DT PIN-577401

4. K.THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE KADASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KADA OFFICE, MALAVAGOPPA, SHIMOGA-577201

5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01

6. THE TAHASHILDAR HONNALI TALUK, HONNALI, DAVANGAERE DT-577217 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAHESH P UPPIN, ADV. FOR R1, R3 & R4, SMT. LALITHA P.M, HCGP, FOR R5 & R6 SRI. C.A.AJITH, ADV. FOR R2(A) & R2(B) )

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 03.04.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.17/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 25.2.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.224/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE, HONNALI, AND ETC., 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 Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2014, passed in R.A.No.17/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Harihar.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.3 to 6 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and the other respondents were the defendants.

3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and mandatory injunction, to cancel the order of grant made in favour of father of defendant Nos.3 to 6 and defendant No.7 regarding Sy.No.56 new RTC No.56/P2 measuring 4 acres situated at Dhonderi village, Honnali Taluk. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land bearing Sy.No.56 was totally measuring 30 acres and it was gomal land and on 06.07.1963, the schedule land to the extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.56 was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Likewise, the Government has granted remaining part of land to the different cultivators from time to time. According to the grant order dated 06.07.1963, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records and the mutation was also passed. Since the order of grant, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule land. The plaintiff came to know that the government granted 4 acres of land in favour of defendant No.7 on 30.03.1971 and another 4 acres in favour of father of defendant Nos.3 to 6. By virtue of the said grant order, the grant made in favour of the father of defendant Nos.3 to 6, effected the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The father of defendant Nos.3 to 6, and defendant No.7 colluding with each other and the surveyor authority prepared the sketch and no land of the plaintiff was shown in the sketch prepared. Based on the sketch and revenue entries, the name of