1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3113/2006

BETWEEN:

1.

RUDRANNA

S/O VEERANNA

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

AGRICULTURIST,

BY OCCUPATION

R/O. MANUVINAKURKE

C.N. DURGA HOBLI,

KORATAGERE TALUK

TUMKUR DIST-572 101.

SINCE APPELLANT NO.1 IS DEAD

REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.

1(a). NAGAMMA

W/O RUDRANNA (LATE)

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

1(b). SURESH

S/O LATE RUDRANNA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

1(c). SHIVANNA

S/O LATE RUDRANNA

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

2

ALL ARE R/AT MANUVINAKURKE,

C.N. DURGA HOBLI,

KORATAGERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DIST-572 107.

2 . SIDDAPPA

S/O. VEERANNA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

FOOD DEPARTMENT

R/O. DARAGA ROAD

CHOWDESHWARI BEEDI

MADHUGIRI-572 132.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI N.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. GOWRAMMA,

W/O M S BASAVARAJU

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/O. MANUVINAKURKE

VILLAGE, C.N. DURGA HOBLI

KORATAGERE TALUK

TUMKUR DIST-572 101.

…Respondent

(BY SHRI T. GOVINDA RAJA, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

THIS

REGULAR

SECOND

APPEAL

IS

FILED

UNDER

SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED 01.09.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.145/2005 ON THE FILE

OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE

APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

17.10.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.96/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE

CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., KORATAGERE.

3

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Counsel

for

appellants

present.

Counsel

for

respondent absent and there is no representation. The

matter is of the year 2006, in terms of the regular appeal it

is of the year 2005 and in terms of the original suit it is of

the year 2004.

2.

The present Regular Second Appeal filed by

defendants relates to Original Suit No.96/2004 filed by one

Smt.Gowramma W/o M.S.Basavaraju against defendants -

Rudrappa and Siddappa, for the relief of permanent

injunction. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of

the plaintiff on 17.10.2005. The defendants preferred

appeal in R.A No.145/2005. The said appeal came to be

dismissed on 01.09.2006. Being aggrieved of the said

4

judgment and decree the defendants have come in this

Regular Second Appeal.

3.

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the

parties are addressed in accordance with their ranks as

stood in the trial Court.

4.

The case as presented by the plaintiff before the

trial Court is that the schedule property was purchased by

M.S.Basavaraju husband of plaintiff from one Gangamma

by registered sale deed dated 25.05.1992. The katha and

pahani of the document was transferred in the name of

plaintiff’s

husband.

Unfortunately,

from

24.04.2000

plaintiff’s husband disappeared and was unfound till the

date of filing of the suit. He has left behind the plaintiff and

two sons by name Chikkanagowda and Siddagangaiah.

From the date of purchase, plaintiff is in exclusive

possession

and

enjoyment

of

the

property

paying

5

khandayam to the Government. Defendants who are utter

strangers have started interference to the schedule

property and peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

5.

Defendants contended that husband is not

absconding. It is only with a malafide intention such kind of

averments is made. It is also stated that plaintiff is entitled

for only 3 acres 5 guntas in both Sy.no.141/3 and 141/5.

But in Sy.no.141/3 she has stated she is entitled for 3 acres

9 guntas and the land is attempted to be encroached by the

defendants, hence she has filed the suit.

6.

The learned trial Judge has framed the following

issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful

possession

over

the

suit

schedule

property as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged

interfere