IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. H B RATHNAMMA W/O LAKSHMANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT POYNY POULTRY FARM AREHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE 560061.

2. SMT. L POORNIMA D/O LAKSHMANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 206 A BLOCK, MANTRI ELEGANCE N S PALYA, BANNERGATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 76.

…APPELLANTS Digitally signed by AL (BY SRI. SURESH LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR BHAGYA SRI. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH COU RT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. D RAMACHANDRA S/O DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

2. SMT. SUSHEELA D/O DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BOTH ARE AT SRINIVASA FARM AREHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 061.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THONTADHARYA R K, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2011 PASSED IN O.S.2105/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 17TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-16), BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the defendants directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.2105/2008, whereby plaintiffs are declared to be the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. Consequently, the defendants by way of perpetual injunction are restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.20/13 measuring 4 guntas. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that defendant No.1 – Rathnamma had originally acquired title over two distinct agricultural properties under separate registered sale deeds. It is their categorical assertion that defendant No.1 purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.20/2D measuring 37 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1978 bearing Document No.3599 and also purchased the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.20/13 measuring 4 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 19.11.1977 bearing Document No.3600. The plaintiffs, therefore, have unequivocally acknowledged the lawful title of defendant No.1 over both the aforesaid properties prior to their purchase.

4. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1, having acquired title to both the above said properties, subsequently conveyed the same in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1978 (Ex.P-1), whereby the land bearing Sy.No.20/13 measuring 4 guntas and Sy.No.20/2D measuring 37 guntas, in all measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, were sold. According to the plaintiffs, notwithstanding such absolute conveyance under Ex.P-1, defendant No.1 later began asserting right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and, in furtherance of such assertion, executed a registered gift deed dated 29.06.2006 in favour of her daughter purporting to convey the very same suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the subsequent assertion of title and execution of the gift deed, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking declaration of their title and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

5. Per contra, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement contesting the suit. While stoutly denying the plaint averments in toto, she specifically contended that she had sold only land bearing Sy.No.20/2D measuring 37 guntas, inclusive of 2 guntas kharab, and not the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.20/13 measuring 4 guntas. It is her specific