IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.316/2017 (RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI SRINIVAS S/O. D RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3. SMT. NANJAMMA W/O. RAJANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE D. RAMAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.42, MUNNESWARA TEMPLE STREET, B.S.K. II^ND STAGE, KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560070.

...APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.B. NADISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI V.N. SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O A. SITHARAMA SETTY, RESIDING AT NO.17/1, SUBRAMANYAPURA ROAD, KADIRENAHALLI CIRCLE, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU-70.

2. PADMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. A.S. SATYARANAYARA, R/AT NO.913, 1^ST FLOOR, I A MAIN, THYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU-560028. 3. ANANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. SREERAMAIAH SETTY, RESIDING AT NO.3/1, GRAMADEVATHA CROSS ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-004.

4. SRI VENKATESHBABU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. K. NAGARAJA SETTY, NO.186/22, 8^TH CROSS, II MAIN, JAYANAGARA II BLOCK, BENGALURU-011.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI K.R. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S. NO.2194/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.28), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11/12/2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV JUDGMENT

This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2017 passed in O.S. No.2194/2002 on the file of XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the ‘B’ schedule property measuring approximately 3 guntas in Survey No.17/1 and for mesne profits came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

Plaint averments

2. The plaintiffs state that the plaintiffs’ father was the absolute owner of 1 acre 22 guntas in Survey No.17/1 of Kadirenahalli Village. Under a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1979-Ex.P2 only 9 guntas were sold to defendant No.1. The remaining extent continued to vest with the plaintiffs, during revenue survey conducted in 1990, it was discovered that defendant No.1 was in possession of an excess extent of 3 guntas over and above the 9 guntas purchased. Defendant No.1 had agreed to either pay for the excess extent or deliver possession, but later resiled. Defendant No.1 thereafter executed sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the portion carved out of the encroached area. The plaintiffs state that defendant No.1 had no title beyond 9 guntas and therefore, alienation beyond 9 guntas is illegal and hence, the suit for possession of ‘B’ schedule property measuring 3 guntas, and for mesne profits.

Written statement averments

3. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 contended that they are bonafide purchasers from defendant No.1. It is stated that they verified title deed dated 15.03.1979 and in their written statement at paragraph No.3, it is stated as under :

“3. The defendants Two to four respectfully submit that they are the bonafide purchasers of the land approximately 2.5 Guntas of land jointly together in Sy.No.17/1 of Kadirenahalli Village from the first defendant Mr. Prasanna Kumar hereinafter having verified the title deed of the first defendant herein and these defendants only having satisfied with the Title and right of their vendor the first defendant herein, and have perused the registered sale deed dated 14.03.1979 for 09 Guntas of land and for the remaining Four Guntas of land you have executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant on dated 8.6.1981, and only after having verified and perused the registered documents t