The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.93 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O BADAGI PEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O DODDARANGAVVANHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, DAVANAGERE – 577514. (BY SRI. VEERESHA E., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. SRI YOGESH @ YOGESHAPPA, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O ANJANEYA MILL EXTENSION, BADA CROSS, DAVANAGERE – 577001. …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.658/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.40/2A1 measuring 1 acre situated at Doddarangavvanahalli Village, Anagodu Hobli, Davanagere District. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased 2 acres of land in suit schedule survey number under registered sale deed dated 11.05.1987 from Smt. Laxmamma and her son Halappa for consideration of Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. In the year 1992, the plaintiff has sold 1 acre of the land in the said property in favour of Smt. Hanumavva and retained 1 acre of land and enjoying the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is coming to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR Davanagere everyday for the purpose of work and he asked the defendant to cultivate the suit schedule property on crop share basis. Accordingly, the defendant was cultivating the suit schedule property from 2005 and the plaintiff was giving half share in the crop from the suit schedule property every year. The defendant from the year 2005 to 2007 had given the crop grown in the suit schedule property and in the year 2008, the defendant has not given any crop grown in the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff told the defendant not to cultivate his land. For that the defendant has abused the plaintiff in a filthy language and tried to trespass upon the suit schedule property. On 12.09.2014, the plaintiff lodged the complaint against the defendant regarding unlawfully trespassing on the suit schedule property. The police have given the endorsement that the dispute is in civil nature and hence he filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration. 4. The defendant in pursuance of the suit summons appeared and filed the written statement stating that the suit itself is not maintainable and contended that the land measuring 4 acres 1 gunta in Sy.No.40/2B was purchased by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR his propositus Hanumanthappa from its erstwhile owner Revanasiddappa under the sale deed dated 15.08.1957 and the sale deed is registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Davanagere on 17.08.1957 and on the same day, the propositus Hanumanthappa became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 4 acres 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.40/2B. The propositus Hanumanthappa S/o Budagi Peddappa died long back and after the death of propositus, his sons Peddappa and Thippanna became the owners and in possession of the said land. During the lifetime of Peddappa and Thippanna, no division was taken place in respect of Sy.No.40/2B. The defendant’s father Peddappa had died 20 years back leaving behind the defendant as the only male heir. After the death of Pedappa, the defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and paying the land revenue to the Government and the plaintiff has no manner of title. 5. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record and also the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court in paragraph No.32 comes to the conclusion - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR that the defendant has not disputed the registered sale deeds Ex.Ps.1 and 6 and therefore the defendant has admitted that his junior uncle has sold 2 acres of land in Sy.No.40/2A of Doddarangavanahalli Village to Laxmamma under Ex.P.6 and in turn Laxmamma and her son Halappa had sold 2 acres of land to the plaintiff on 11.05.1987. The plaintiff has acquired absolute title over 2 acres of land in Sy.No.40/2A and in the year 1992, 1 acre was sold and remaining 1 acre vest with the plaintiff. The Trial Court considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case to declare him as the absolute owner and decreed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.67/2023. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out the case for having purchased the property and also sold portion of the property to the extent of 1 acre and retained 1 acre and hence confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal would contend that both the Courts have committed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out the case to declare him as the owner of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts failed to take note of the material on record and mainly relies upon Exs.P.1 and 6 and the very approach of both the Courts is erroneous. Hence, this Court has to frame substantial question of law. The learned counsel contend that the observation made by both the Courts that the defendant has not disputed the registered sale deed Exs.P.1 and 6, is erroneous. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material available on record, the Trial Court having considered the sale deed Exs.P.1 and 6, comes to the conclusion that though the property to the extent of 2 acres was purchased by the plaintiff, he sold 1 acre and retained 1 acre of land and when the interference was made, complaint was given. Having considered the same, the Trial Court rightly considered the material on record in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff and also taken note of the sale deed of the year 1987 and 1975 in paragraph No.10. In paragraph No.19 taken note of the claim made by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR defendant and non-production of the genealogical tree and in paragraph No.20 observed that when a suggestion was made to D.W.1 with regard to the sale of the property in favour of Laxmamma and Laxmamma in turn sold the property, the same was not categorically denied, except stating that he is not aware of the same and in paragraph No.21 in detail discussed the same. The First Appellate Court having re- assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly in paragraph No.32 taken note of the extent of the property sold in terms of Exs.P.1 and 6 and when the sale was made to the extent of 2 acres, out of that, 1 acre was sold to Hanumavva and 1 acre of land was retained. Hence, taking into note of the said fact into consideration, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property to the extent of 1 acre of land. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the Courts have committed an error in making an observation that two sale deeds Exs.P.1 and 6 are clear with regard to the title of the plaintiff inspite of the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof regarding the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23070 RSA No. 93 of 2024 HC-KAR document is concerned and the very observation made by the Courts that Exs.P.1 and 6 is not disputed, is erroneous. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that when a suggestion was made to the defendant, he only denied that he is not aware of the sale and not categorically denied that there was no any sale deed in terms of Exs.P.1 and 6. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court, particularly relying upon the document of Exs.P.1 and 6 and hence the appellant has not made out any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62