The High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts unless there is manifest perversity, illegality, or a significant error of law that justifies framing a substantial question of law.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.34/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.91/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGARA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at K.R.Nagar in RA.No.34/2020 dated 05.04.2024 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara, in OS.No.91/2014 dated 25.06.2020, whereby the learned trial judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants for the sake of brevity.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Late.Guru siddappa alias Doddappa, S/o Late.Gurappa had two daughters, namely Akkayamma and Gowramma. Late.Guru siddappa did not have male issues. He executed a registered will on 28.11.1917 in favour of his two daughters in respect of all the properties. After execution of the said will, said Gurusiddappa died, and the possession and enjoyment of the properties continued by his two daughters as divided by him. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs’ sisters continued in possession and enjoyment of the property of their respective shares as per the will given by their father.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the properties of the late.Gurusiddappa, i.e., the properties bearing Sy.No.27 measuring 4 acres 0.12 guntas and in Sy.No.28 measuring 5 acres 0.11 guntas totally measuring 9 acres 0.23 guntas, as per the wish of their father and as per the registered will dated 28.11.1917, oral partition was entered into between the two daughters with regard to the property measuring 4 acres 0.12 guntas, which was possessed by the first daughter Akkayyamma in Survey No.28. Property measuring 4 acre 12 guntas in survey No. 27 and the property measuring 0.19.8 guntas in survey No.28 totally measuring 4.31.8 guntas was possessed and enjoyed by the second daughter Gowramma.

6. The khatas in respect of the properties were mutated in the name of the respective daughters. The khata in respect of the remaining share of property of Gowramma in Survey No. 28, measuring to an extent of 0.19.8 guntas continued in the name of Akkayyamma. After the demise of Gowramma, the possession was continued by the plaintiffs.

7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property bearing survey No.28/1 measuring 19.8 guntas situated at Adaganahalli Village, Hebbalu Hobli, K.R.Nagar Taluk, and that it is their case that the plaint schedule property has fallen to their ownership and possession by virtue of registered will executed by Late. Gurusiddappa @ Doddappa S/o Late.Gurappa dated 28.11.1917. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property is an agricultural property.

8. It is contended that the first plaintiff’s grandmother and second plaintiff’s mother were uneducated and due to lack of worldly knowledge after the demise of Gurusiddappa they have not filed any application before the concerned revenue authority for change of katha in respect of the schedule properties in their name. Even though the kathas were not changed, the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff during the lifetime of Gowramma and till date are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

9. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 10.02.2014 at 12 a.m., defendants illegally entered into the suit schedule property thereby interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint