Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24128

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J
Ashoka – Appellant
Versus
K.B. Mahabalesh – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.25 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.V. Prakash
For the Respondents: H.Kantharaj, H.Dayananda Saraswathi

In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the appellant demonstrates palpable perversity or illegality, as appellate courts cannot substitute their own view on questions of fact where the lower courts have properly evaluated the evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of interference - Appellate court in second appeal is not required to re-appreciate evidence on record unless perversity is shown in judgments of courts below - Interference not warranted where reasons assigned are just and proper.

(B) Property Law - Possession follows title - Adverse possession - Plea of adverse possession requires clear proof of hostile possession against true owner - Inconsistent pleas of ownership via sale agreement and adverse possession are not maintainable without proof of title or valid legal possession.

Facts of the case:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession regarding a property measuring 33x25 feet. The plaintiff claimed ownership via a registered sale deed. The appellant-defendant, in possession of the said portion, claimed rights based on an oral agreement of sale with the erstwhile owner, an assertion of adverse possession, and an unsupported claim that the land belonged to the government. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly found that the title of the plaintiff was established and unrefuted. The defendant's inconsistent claims and failure to produce evidence of title or adverse possession were fatal to his case.

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law exists for this Court to entertain the second appeal against concurrent findings of fact.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the first appellate court cannot be disturbed in second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC unless there is perversity, illegality, or lack of application of mind, none of which were demonstrated in the present case.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court facts and parties' conflicting property claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding validity of title and evidence evaluation. (Para 5 , 6)
3. final appellate finding on concurrent findings and limited scope of section 100 cpc. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2024 BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.170/2014 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGARA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2025 passed in R.A.No.22/2024 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagara, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.170/2014 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, whereby the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff and directed the appellant-defendant to handover the vacant possession of ABCD portion mentioned in the sketch appended to the plaint, to the respondent-plaintiff.

2. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for declaration to declare himself as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, which is mentioned in the rough sketch attached to the plaint as ABCD portion measuring East to West: 33-00 feet and North to South: 25-00 feet and for recovery of the suit property from the defendant.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.10/5, dry land measuring 0-22 guntas situated at Neerkodu Village, Sagar Taluk. It is his further case that originally, the suit schedule property belonged to one Sri Chinnappa, S/o.Karibasappa. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Chinnappa and took possession of the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2012. Pursuant to purchase of the suit schedule property, RTC and mutation entries were changed in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been paying revenue to the Government regularly and the plaintiff has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that there was a small Mangalore tiled house situated on the north-west corner i.e. on the western side of the northern portion of Sy.No.10/5 of Neerkodu Village.

4.1 On 28.06.2012, the defendant approached the plaintiff and sought permission to live in the said house for a period of six months and after stipulated period, he will vacate and handover the possession thereafter to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff agreed and allowed the defendant to stay and reside in the house for a period of six months. Therefore, it is the say of the plaintiff that the defendant was in the permissive possession of the suit schedule property.

4.2 In view of the fact that the defendant did not handover the vacant possession of the schedule property within a period of six months as agreed, the plaintiff was constrained to withdraw the oral permission granted and got issued a notice on 08.04.2013. Despite issuance of notice, the defendant has not handed over the possession of the suit schedule property, which perforced the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and possession.

4.3 Upon service of summons to the defendant, he appeared and filed written statement denying the facts and the plaint averments. He took up a plea that he has spent about Rs.80,000/- and built a house in three and a half months and started living in the said house way back in the year 2000. It was a plea taken by the def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24128

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAPradeep Singh Yerur, JAshoka – AppellantVersusK.B. Mahabalesh – RespondentREGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.25 OF 2026

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J
Ashoka – Appellant
Versus
K.B. Mahabalesh – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.25 OF 2026