1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

P.DODDA CHITTHAIAH,

S/O PATTADA CHITTHAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

R/AT KATAGANAHATTI,

HAMLET OF CHINAKAVAJRA,

KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

ERANNA

S/O ERAMASAIAH

SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

1.

KALAMMA

W/O LATE ERANNA,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

2.

ERAMASAIAH,

S/O LATE ERANNA,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

3.

MUTHAKKA,

D/O LATE ERANNA,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

4.

CHIKKEERAPPA,

S/O ERANNA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

2

ALL ARE R/AT KATAGANAHATTI,

HAMLET OF CHINAKAVAJRA,

KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR

R1, R3 AND R4;

R2 - SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,

CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2013 PASSED BY

THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI IN

R.A.NO.113/2006

CONFIRMING

THE

JUDGMENT

DATED

27.06.2006

PASSED

BY

THE

PRINICIPAL

CIVIL

JUDGE

(JR.DVN.), MADHUGIRI IN O.S.NO.268/2003.

THIS RSA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for appellant has

appeared in-person and Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 has appeared

through video conferencing.

2.

The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

per their rankings before the trial Court.

3.

The short facts of the case are as under: - The

land situated at Veeranagenahally village, Kasaba Hobli,

3

Madhugiri Taluk measuring 3.20 guntas in Sy.No.10/21P

originally belonged to one Kataiah S/o.Kataiah. He had

sold the said land to one Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, through

a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1959. Earlier, the

survey number of the land was survey No.10 and

subsequently, the Authorities concerned have assigned the

survey numbers as 10/21 and 10/21p. The land was

identified with the boundaries also. After purchase of the

property, Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa became the absolute

owner of the property and he was in actual possession and

enjoyment of the above said land.

The first defendant-Eranna is the brother of the

second Defendant -Chikkerappa .The first defendant

purchased the suit schedule property measuring 1.30

guntas under a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1964

from the owner –Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa.

Plaintiff averred that he has purchased that entire land

in Sy.No.10/21P measuring 03.20 guntas for a valuable

consideration of Rs.3000/- under a registered sale deed

dated 28.12.1982 from Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa. He stated

4

that ever since the date of the purchase of the land, he is

in

continuous

peaceful

and

actual

possession

and

enjoyment of the land openly adversely notoriously hostile

to the interest and knowledge of defendants for more than

statutory period of limitation i.e.,12 years and therefore,

he acquired title to the suit schedule property by adverse

possession.

It is stated that though defendant No.1 acquired title

under the registered sale deed dated 14.05.1964, his right

gets extinguished by law of limitation and hence, loses his

right, title and possession over the suit schedule property.

Contending that defendants have no right over the suit

schedule property and at the instance of persons who are

not in good relation with plaintiff tried to interfere with his

peaceful possession and therefore, he sought the aid of

the Court and seeking appropriate reliefs.

On service of summons, defendants appeared and

filed

written

statement.

They

denied

the

plai