IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1398 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

YERRANNA

S/O HOTTE CHITTHANA

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

R/AT HANASEMARADAHATTI

HAMLET OF CHINAKAVARAJA VILLAGE

KASABA HOBLI

MADHUGIRI TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

1(A) KATAIAH

S/O YERANNA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

1(B) CHITAIAH

S/O YERANNA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT

HANASEMARADAHATTI

HAMLET OF CHINAKAVARAJA VILLAGE

KASABA HOBLI

MADHUGIRI TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED

06.06.2014.

….APPELLANTS

2

(BY SRI.HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

DODDERANNA

S/O BIKEERANNA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

R/AT KATAGANAHATTI

HAMLET OF CHINAKAVARAJA VILLAGE

KASABA HOBLI

MADHUGIRI TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.06.2009 PASSED IN

R.A.NO.69/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN.) &

JMFC., MADHUGIRI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2001 PASSED

IN O.S.NO.187 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JR.DVN.) MADHUGIRI.

THIS RSA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

3

JUDGMENT

This appeal was admitted for considering the following

substantial questions of law, namely,

Whether the First Appellate Court could

ignore the sale deed in favour of the appellant to

an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas, when it was not in

dispute that the respondent could claim only 33

guntas of the suit property and whether the First

Appellate Court was therefore justified in decreeing

the suit for possession to the entire extent?

2.

The respondent herein as plaintiff instituted a suit in

O.S.No.187/1996 for the relief of permanent injunction in

respect of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property

was described as the "land situated at Chinakavajra village,

Kasaba hobli, Madhugiri taluk, bearing Sy.No.230, measuring 5

acres 3 guntas assessed at Rs.4.18 paise. Out of this 3 acres of

the land within the following boundaries, East – land of

Sannechikkanna and Dodderanna, West – land of Chikkanna,

North – land of Yarranna and South – land of Parvathamma."

4

3.

The case of the plaintiff is that, the suit schedule

property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s father

Bikeeranna in a partition between himself and his brothers.

Since then, his father has been in possession and enjoyment of

the suit property. His father is aged about 90 years and is

unable to move about and hence, plaintiff has been looking after

the family affairs as the Manager of the family. The khata and

pahani of the schedule property stands in the name of the

plaintiff. The defendant has no manner of right, title or interest

over the suit schedule property, but with an ulterior motive to

knock off the property, he is trying to encroach the suit land on

the northern side and hence, the plaintiff sought for an order of

permanent injunction restraining the defendant (appellant

herein) from interfering with the suit schedule property.

4.

The defendant denied that the suit schedule property

is the ancestral property of the plaintiff fallen to the share of the

father of the plaintiff. He also denied the possession of the suit

property by the plaintiff in his capacity as the Manager of the

family. He denied the alleged attempts to encroach the suit

5

property on its northern side and put forth a plea that one

Chikkanna s/o. Erachikkappa was the owner of Sy.No.71/4 and

the said Chikkanna had sold 2 acres 20 guntas, out of the total

extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.71/4 to the defendant, under a

registered sale deed dated 22.10.1952 and since then, the

defendant has bee