Karnataka High Court
M.P. Sugandappa vs S. Jayadeva Shastry on 17 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2211 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2196 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
IN RSA NO.2211/2023:
BETWEEN:
M.P. SUGANDAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. NETRAVATHI
W/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O SALUR VILLAGE,
ANJANAPURA HOBLI,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
2. CHAITRA PATIL W/O LOHIT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF D/O M.P. SUGANDAPPA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O GONDI CHATNAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577216.
3. MANJUNATH PATIL M S
S/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O SALUR VILLAGE,
ANJANAPURA HOBLI,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. KASHIVISHWANATHA
S/O M G PALAKSHAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O SALUR VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. JAYADEVA SHASTRY
S/O MAHABALA SHASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/O S.S.ROAD, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
2. S. NIRANJANA SHASTRY
S/O NAGABHUSHAN SHASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O DODDAPETE, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
3. B.G. MALTESH (BHANDARI)
S/O GIDDAPPA BHANDARI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O SANKRI REVENNARAKERI
SHIKARIPURA TOWN AND TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.38/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 03.07.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.11/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA AND
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN RSA NO.2196/2023:
BETWEEN:
M.P. SUGANDAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. NETRAVATHI
W/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O SALUR VILLAGE
ANJANAPURA HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
2. CHAITRA PATIL W/O LOHIT
D/O M.P. SUGANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O GONDI CHATNAHALLI
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577216.
3. MANJUNATH PATIL M.S.
S/O LATE M.P. SUGANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O SALUR VILLAGE
ANJANAPURA HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
4. KASHIVISHWANATHA
S/O M.G. PALAKSHAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O SALUR VILAGE
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. S. JAYADEVA SHASTRY
S/O MAHABALA SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O S.S. ROAD
SHIKARIPURA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
2. S. NIRANJANA SHASTRY
S/O NAGABHUSHAN SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O DODDAPETE
SHIKARIPURA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
3. H.B. PALAKSHAPPA
S/O H.B. VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O DODDAPETE
SHIKARIPURA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.06.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.07.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/2011 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA ABD
ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847
RSA No. 2211 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
These matters are listed for admission along with the IAs.
2. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Along with the appeal in R.S.A.No.2211/2023, I.A.No.1/2024 is also filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission of this Court to consider the additional evidence. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said appeal filed objections to the said application.
4. These two second appeals are arising out of the common judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court is that the Trial Court rejected the suit only on the ground that adverse possession is not proved and no pleading with regard to the part performance of the contract. The counsel for the appellants filed the synopsis stating that the relief is prayed for the declaration to declare -6- NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 in respective suits are null and void and not binding on the rights, uninterrupted settled possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and to declare that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of adverse possession and also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The counsel further contend that the suit schedule property measures 325x500 feet and the same belongs to the Mahabala Sastry and during lifetime of Mahabala Sastry and father of the plaintiffs, they had entered into an agreement of sale dated 15.02.1962 and possession was handed over on the date of sale agreement and the entire sale consideration was also paid. But Mahabala Sastry postponed the execution of the sale deed on one or the other pretext. After the death of Mahabala Sastry, the legal representative did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Though the demand register stood in the name of Mahabala Sastry, the possession and enjoyment column showed the name of the father of the plaintiffs throughout from the date of agreement of sale. The resolution was passed on 27.05.1988 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR mutating the name of the plaintiffs' father i.e., Palakshappa Gowda and after the death of the father of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property and they were paying tax to the competent authority and they are in continued the uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property for the last 4 decades.
5. The counsel also would vehemently contend that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have fabricated and manipulated the previous documents and succeeded to mutate their names in the revenue records by creating the measurement as per their convenience and obtained numbers as 170/1 and 170/2. Thereafter, they created the sale deed in the year 2010. On the strength of the sale deed, tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and hence, the present suit is filed.
6. The counsel appearing for the appellants also brought to notice of this Court to the written statement filed by the defendants denying the averments of the plaint and also disputed the execution of the unregistered agreement of sale. It is also contended that the said agreement was not enforced for a period of 49 years and plaintiffs have approached the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR Court belatedly and contend that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The counsel also would vehemently contend that other defences were also taken with regard to the stamp duty and also the non-joinder of necessary parties and also contend that no resolution came to be passed on 27.05.1988 to mutate the katha in the name of the father of the plaintiffs. Even if so, contended that Panchayath had no jurisdiction to pass such resolution.
7. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The plaintiffs examined the witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand, defendant got examined 3 witnesses and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D8. The execution of sale deed in respect of property bearing Site No.170 measuring 325x500 feet came to be challenged by filing another suit in O.S.No.11/2011 and both the suits are clubbed together and common evidence came to be recorded and disposed of together considering the common both oral and documentary evidence.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR
8. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that documents at Ex.P3 to P6 show that the name of Palakshappa Gowda i.e., the father of the plaintiffs is forthcoming as Anubhavadar from 1968-69 till 1995-1996 and also Ex.P7 clearly shows that father of the plaintiffs was in possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly, they have proceeded to pass a resolution and even evidence of PW1 to PW7 establishes the possession of the plaintiffs. But the Trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that there is no pleading with regard to the part performance of the contract and not proved the adverse possession.
9. The counsel also would vehemently contend that DW1 has admitted that no documents are produced with regard to the running of the rice mill. But their case is that they are not aware of the transaction between the plaintiffs' father and also the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 even though suit is filed in O.S.No.229/2013 by the subsequent purchaser and the same was withdrawn. Even Ex.P10 came to be marked confronting the document wherein he has admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. He has
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR denied the suggestions made with regard to the forcible interference. So also, DW3 evidence is also similar that he was pleaded ignorance with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs. But DW3 admitted that demand register came to be mutated in collusion and also admitted that Secretary has no authority or power to mutate the demand register. These are the evidence which clearly discloses that there is an admission with regard to the possession of the property by the plaintiffs and established delivery of possession by part performance of contract.
10. The counsel in support of his arguments contend that an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before this Court and voluminous documents are produced before this Court evidencing the fact that in terms of the sale agreement, possession is delivered on the date of the sale agreement itself and the same evidenced the part performance of contract. The documents are certified copy of agreement of sale dated 15.02.1962; certified copy of the tax demand registers 8 in numbers; original death certificates; certified copy of the registered Will dated 18.05.1989 executed by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR Mahabala Sastry. The counsel referring the document of Will dated 18.05.1989 would contend that when the Will was executed in the year 1989, the present suit schedule property was not included in the Will executed by Mahabala Sastry and that itself clearly discloses that property was sold in favour of the plaintiffs' father, hence, not included the same in the Will. The subsequent registered Will is dated 10.03.1992. The counsel brought to notice of this Court to the date of death of the Mahabala Sastry i.e., 12.03.1992. But document was registered subsequent to the death of the testator i.e., on 13.03.1992. The counsel contend that it clearly discloses that documents are created by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The counsel also produced the copy of the mortgage deed dated 02.01.1948 which was executed by the Mahabala Sastry prior to this transaction to show that he was not having the income in respect of the property and also encumbrance certificates which are produced before this Court i.e., Form No.6 - 3 in numbers and certified copy of encumbrances in Form No.15 -2 in numbers which disclose the name of the appellants' father. The counsel also produced the tax demand registers from 1956-57 to 1967-68 and also from the year 1968-69 and all these
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR documents evidence the fact that subsequent to the execution of sale agreement and handing over the possession, tax was also paid. But the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no any averment and material with regard to the part performance of the sale agreement but the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous.
11. The counsel also vehemently contend that all the revenue records stands in the name of the plaintiffs and the same shows that they are in possession of the property and the title is shown in respect of Mahabala Sastry. These are the materials could not be placed before the Trial Court since the same were misplaced and now, they found the same. These documents are necessary to decide the germane issues involved between the parties. Hence, the matter requires to be remanded to consider the matter afresh.
12. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has filed the statement of objections to the said application stating that no explanation for non-production of documents before the Trial Court. The counsel also vehemently contend that those documents are not produced before the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR Court and the averments made in the affidavit does not disclose the ground to entertain the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Hence, the appellants have not made out any ground to produce any additional documents. The counsel also would vehemently contend that on considering the material on record, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that there was no evidence with regard to the part performance and also the relief is sought for the declaration to declare that he has perfected the title by adverse possession. Hence, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not committed any error in passing such a order.
13. Having heard the appellants' counsel and also the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also considering the material on record particularly, the reason assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the documents which have been produced before this Court filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which are in voluminous, the points that would arise for the consideration of this in second appeal are:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR
1. Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs inspite of documents, particularly Ex.P3 to P6, which shows the name of the plaintiffs' father forthcoming as Anuabhavdar from 1968-69 till 1995-96?
2. Whether the appellants have made out grounds to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in view of voluminous documents placed before this Court and whether those documents are necessary for consideration which clinches the germane issues involved between the parties?
14. Having considered the voluminous documents which have been placed before this Court along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, those documents are relating to the sale agreement and delivery of possession on the date of sale agreement. It is unfortunate that the counsel who conducted the case before the Trial Court, when there is a pleading with regard to the sale agreement is concerned, the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR same is not placed before the Court. It is nothing but a travesty of justice. The counsel who appears on behalf of the plaintiffs when pleadings are made with regard to the sale agreement, the same is not placed before the Court and the same is a suit document wherein specifically pleaded that there was a sale agreement of the year 1962 and it is reason best known to the counsel who appeared before the Trial Court about concealing the documents.
15. Apart from that the documents which have been produced before the Court as additional evidence is from 1968- 69 onwards clearly disclose that in pursuance of the part performance of sale agreement, possession was delivered and all revenue entries in the demand register clearly discloses that the plaintiffs' father is in cultivation of the suit schedule property which establishes the delivery of possession and part performance of contract. The additional documents which have been produced before this Court are certified copy of the tax demand register for year 1968-69, certified copy of the tax demand register for the year 1974-75, certified copy of the tax demand register of the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 and also
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR 1981-82, 1989-90 and 1956-57 to 1967-68. All these documents clearly disclose that the plaintiffs' father is in possession of the suit property throughout establishing the part performance and these documents requires to be produced and germane issue arises to be considered considering these documents.
16. Apart from that plaintiffs also relies upon the document of the Will dated 18.05.1989. When the very Mahabala Sastry executed the Will, excluded the present suit schedule property in the Will. If there was no any sale transaction, what prevented him in including this property in the Will also to be considered. The counsel appearing for the plaintiffs relies upon the Will dated 10.03.1992 and the same was registered on 13.03.1992, but death certificate of Mahabala Sastry discloses that he died on 12.03.1992 that is document was registered on the next day wherein the suit schedule property was included subsequent to the death of Mahabala Sastry. Thus, it appears that the said document is created for the purpose of the case. The counsel also relied upon other documents before the Court and the same clinches
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR the germane issues involved between the parties and the same has to be considered in the Trial Court. All these documents are not placed before the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The reasons are given by the counsel that some of the documents are subsequently obtained and some of the documents were found on searching the house. All these documents are produced before the Court and having considered these documents, if application is not allowed, it causes prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs. The issue involved between the parties is with regard to the execution of sale agreement in the year 1962 and delivery of the possession of the property and tax paid receipts are also produced before the Court and the documents disclose that taxes are paid in respect of the suit schedule property from the date of sale transaction. Even the sale agreement property i.e., suit schedule property was not included in the Will of the year 1989 and only in the year 1992, the Will was registered subsequent to the death of original executant of the sale agreement shown in the document. All these documents to be considered before the Trial Court to decide the germane issues involved between the parties in the matter. Hence, the appellants have made out the case to allow
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Hence, I answer the second substantial question of law accordingly.
17. With regard to the other substantial question of law is concerned, this Court is not touching upon merits of the case in view of the production of additional documents before this Court and the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh. Hence, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Trial Court in view of production of these documents which are in voluminous with regard to the germane issues involved between the parties with regard to the pleadings and contentions taken by the defendant in the written statement and also DW1 and DW2 who have deposed before the Court are the subsequent purchasers and sale was made in favour of defendant No.3 in both the cases subsequent to the Will of the year 1992 wherein property was included that is suit schedule property and in the earlier Will not included the said property and the said question also to be considered by the Trial Court. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of and remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in the admission itself as voluminous documents are produced.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR
18. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER I. The second appeals are disposed of as observed. II. I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in R.S.A.No.2211/2023 is allowed. III. The impugned judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside. IV. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the same afresh in view of allowing of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. V. The Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence on the documents which have been produced before this Court and also directed to give an opportunity to the respondents in both the suits to cross-examine the witnesses.
VI. The Trial Court is also directed to give an opportunity to both the plaintiffs and respondents to lead
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR additional evidence, if any, required for consideration of the matter for fresh consideration. VII. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 without expecting any notice. VIII. The appellants are also directed to serve the copy of this order on respondent No.3 in connected R.S.A.No.2196/2023 to notify that let him to appear before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 who did not appear in the appeal without expecting any notice. If respondent No.3 fails to appear before the Trial Court, the Trial Court is directed to proceed placing him as ex parte and conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 months from 12.01.2026 as he is evading the service.
IX. The appellants' counsel is directed to take back the documents which have been produced along with I.A.No.1/2024 and directed produce the same before the Trial court while adducing the additional evidence before the Trial Court.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53847 RSA No. 2211 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 2196 of 2023 HC-KAR X. The Trial Court is directed not to influence with the observations made by this Court while disposing the matter on merits.
XI. The parties are directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit.
XII. The respective counsels and also the parties are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter in a time bound period.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN