Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Chikkashamanna Reddy vs Smt Chandrakala on 31 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. CHIKKASHAMANNA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
1(A). SMT. JAMUNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE CHIKKASHAMANNA REDDY
1(B). SMT. ARCHANA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKASHAMANNA REDDY
1(C). SMT. PRATHIBA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
Digitally signed DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKASHAMANNA REDDY,
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH WIFE OF PRABHAKAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1(D). SRI. JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF LATE CHIKKASHAMANNA REDDY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUNNEKOLALU
VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI POST
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A TO D)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WIFE OF KODANDA REDDY
RESIDING T HONGASADNRA,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 037.
2. SRI. BHASKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
SON OF MUNINARAYA REDDY
3. SRI. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
SON OF MUNINARAYA REDDY
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
4. SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
AND WIFE OF PAPANNA
RESIDING AT DEVARABISSENAHALLI
BELLANDUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
5. SRI. E.R. VERGBHESE
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
5(A). SMT. THANGAMMA
WIFE OF LATE E.V. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.47/20,
4TH CROSS, VARGHESE BUILDING
NEAR SREE RAMA NURSING
MARATHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037.
5(B). SRI. ANTHONY SANTHOSH
SON OF LATE E.V. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
5(C). SMT. PRINCY
DAUGHTER OF LATE E.V. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5(D). SMT. PRIYA E.V
DAUGHTER OF LATE E.V. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5(E). SMT. PRINA E.V
DAUGHTER OF LATE E.V. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
5(F). SMT. PRIJA E.V
DAUGHTER OF LATE E.V. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
LRS OF 5(B) TO 5(F) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.176, 4TH CROSS
VARGHESE BUILDING, NEAR SREE RAMA NURSING
MARATHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037.
6. SRI. M SRINIVASA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
6(A). SMT. SHANTHAMMA
WIFE OF LATE M. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
6(B). SMT. SAVITHA
DAUGHTER OF LATE M. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
6(C). SRI. NAVEEN
SON OF LATE M. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 6(A) TO 6(C) ARE
RESIDING AT MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 037.
7. SMT. GAYATHRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE M. NAGARAJA REDDY
8. KUM. N. RAJINI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O LATE M NAGARAJ REDDY
9. SRI. ARUN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
SON OF LATE M. NAGARAJ REDDY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
10. SMT. ANKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE DODASHAMANNA REDDY
11. SRI. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O LATE DODDASHAMANNA REDDY
12. SMT. YESHODA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O LATE DODDASHAMANNA REDDY
13. SMT. VEDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O LATE DODDASHAMANNA REDDY
14. KUM. SHARADA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D/O LATE DODDASHAMANNA REDDY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MUNNEKOLALU VILLAGE,
MARATHAHALLI POST
BANGALORE - 560 037.
15. SMT. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY REDDY
16. SMT. VIBHA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
D/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY REDDY
17. SRI. KARTHIK
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
S/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY REDDY
18. KUMARI. SHUBHA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY REDDY
RESPONDENTS 15 TO 18 ARE
RESIDING AT MUNNEKOLALU VILLAGE,
MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 037.
19. SMT. VIMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O LATE R. NANJUNDESHA,
20. KUM. MAMATHA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O LATE R. NANJUNDESHA
21. MASTER RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
S/O LATE R. NANJUNDESHA
22. KUM. KAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
D/O LATE R NANJUNDESHA
RESPONDENTS 21 AND 22 ARE
MINORS IN AGE AND ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND, NATURAL GUARDIAN
AND MOTHER SMT. VIMALAMMA HE RESPONDENT
NO.19 HEREIN.
RESPONDENTS 19 TO 22 ARE
RESIDING AT MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE,
MARATHAHALLI POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. B.N. ANANTHA NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR
R5(A TO F);
V/O/D 20.08.2015 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 AND R11
TO R18 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
R2, R3, R6(A), R6(B), R6(C), R7 TO R10, R19, R20 ARE
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
R21 AND R22 ARE MINORS REP BY R19)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:21.06.2010 PASSED IN O.S.8833/1995 ON THE FILE OF
THE XXIV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION,
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who are assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.8833/1995 wherein the plaintiffs' suit -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR seeking relief of declaration and possession dismissed by the court below.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiffs, along with defendants Nos.4 and 5, have instituted the present suit claiming to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and, consequentially, have sought recovery of possession from defendants Nos.1 to 3, notwithstanding the fact that possession was admittedly obtained by defendant No.3 pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.8931/1980. The suit schedule property is an agricultural land measuring 26 guntas bearing Sy.No.5/4. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the common ancestor, Rangappa @ Hoody Nagappa, was the absolute owner of agricultural lands bearing Sy.Nos.5/1 and 5/4, measuring 2 acres 38 guntas and 26 guntas respectively. According to the plaintiffs, after the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR demise of Hoody Nagappa, his sons, including the plaintiffs' father Muninanjappa Reddy, constituted an undivided joint Hindu family and the suit land bearing Sy.No.5/4 continued to be joint family property, jointly enjoyed by the family members. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that one late Chikkavenkatappa and defendant No.3 created documents in respect of the suit land and that defendant No.3, by filing a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.8931/1980, obtained a decree dated 17.09.1983 and thereafter filed Execution Petition No.750/1995 and began asserting title and possession. It is contended that it was only in the year 1994 that the plaintiffs became aware of the defendants' alleged false claim over the suit land, which constrained them to institute the present suit.
4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance. Defendant No.3, who is the contesting defendant, filed a detailed written statement stoutly denying the averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.3
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR asserted that the suit schedule property did not belong to Hoody Nagappa but admittedly belonged to Nagappa, Thimmaiah and Nyathappa, the sons of one Kuri Pillanna. It is the specific defence that, in a family partition, the suit land was allotted to Chikkavenkatappa @ Venkataswamy Reddy, who thereafter entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.3. On failure of Chikkavenkatappa to perform his part of the contract, defendant No.3 was compelled to institute a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.8931/1980. Pursuant to the decree passed therein, defendant No.3 contends that he obtained a registered sale deed and delivery of possession through execution proceedings. Asserting exclusive title and possession, defendant No.3 sought dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court, on the basis of rival pleadings, framed the necessary issues and relegated the parties to trial. In support of their respective claims, the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of the entire material on
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR record, the Trial Court answered Issues Nos.1 and 4 in the negative, holding that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.4 and 5 failed to establish that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Consequently, Issue No.2 was also answered in the negative. While answering Issue No.3, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8931/1980 were null, void and unenforceable. In that view of the matter, the suit came to be dismissed.
6. Assailing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and placed strong reliance on Ex.P.10, being the phodi proceedings conducted in the year 1929. Relying on the said document, it was vehemently contended that Sy.Nos.5/1 and 5/4 originally belonged to the common ancestor Hoody Nagappa. It was argued that the plaintiffs, who are tracing title through Venkataswamy, could not have conveyed any title to defendant No.3 and that the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR decree obtained in O.S.No.8931/1980 does not confer any valid right or title. Learned counsel further contended that defendant No.3 is asserting title over 26 guntas in Sy.No.5, whereas Ex.P.10 clearly demonstrates that Sy.No.5 had already undergone phodi as early as in 1929. On these premises, it was urged that the plaintiffs have successfully established that the suit land is ancestral joint family property and, therefore, neither the agreement of sale nor the decree for specific performance could create any right in favour of defendant No.3. It was thus contended that the findings recorded by the Trial Court suffer from perversity and warrant interference by this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 stoutly opposed the appeal and placed reliance on Ex.D.1, being the registered sale deed executed by the plaintiffs' father Muninanjappa Reddy along with his sons, alienating Sy.No.5/1. Drawing attention to the recitals therein, it was contended that the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR plaintiffs have unequivocally acknowledged that the land situated to the east of Sy.No.5/1 belonged to Venkataswamy. To that limited extent, reliance was also placed on Ex.P.10 to demonstrate that Sy.No.5/4, which is the suit land, lies to the east of Sy.No.5/1. Learned counsel further relied on the recitals in Ex.D.1 which make reference to the partition effected under a compromise decree in O.S.No.19/1969. By placing reliance on Ex.D.46, being the plaint in O.S.No.19/1969, it was contended that Item No.9 therein pertains only to Sy.No.5/1 and that, at the earliest point of time, the plaintiffs' predecessors never laid any claim over Sy.No.5/4. It was also emphasized that the suit schedule property was never the subject matter of the said partition suit. Drawing attention to the schedule appended to Sy.No.5/1 in the earlier proceedings, it was argued that even therein, the eastern boundary is shown as land belonging to Venkataswamy. Reliance was also placed on the decree passed in the specific performance suit, the schedule of which, according to the learned
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR counsel, clearly tallies with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs' father.
8. Learned counsel for defendant No.3 further placed heavy reliance on the admissions elicited in the cross- examination of the second plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1. Referring to several portions of the cross- examination, it was pointed out that P.W.1, when questioned as to why the suit land was not included in the partition suit of 1969, deposed that the suit land was the self-acquired property of his father, Muninanjappa Reddy. It was contended that this admission runs directly contrary to the pleadings in the present suit, wherein the plaintiffs have asserted that the suit land is ancestral property of Hoody Nagappa. Learned counsel also relied upon the admission regarding alienation of Sy.No.5/1 and the further admission that the land situated on the eastern side of Sy.No.5/1 belonged to Venkataswamy, who is the vendor of defendant No.3. Strong reliance was placed on the notices issued by the BDA, marked as Exs.D.16 to
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR D.18, to demonstrate that it was only defendant No.3 who objected to the acquisition of Sy.No.5/4, whereas the plaintiffs admittedly did not file any objections despite receipt of notice. Reliance was also placed on Ex.D.19 to show that in O.S.No.10663/1994, though an order of injunction was initially granted against defendants Nos.1 and 2, the same was vacated at the instance of defendant No.3. Further reliance was placed on Ex.D.12 to demonstrate that the plaintiffs' attempt to intervene in the execution proceedings was rejected and that the plaintiffs have admitted that defendant No.3 had taken possession from defendants Nos.1 and 2. Concluding his submissions, learned counsel contended that the application seeking production of additional evidence, namely RTC extracts, has no bearing on the core issue of title and therefore deserves to be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon independent assessment of the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR pleadings as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record, the following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property suffers from perversity?
ii. Whether the rebuttal evidence led by the defendants displaces plaintiffs case and therefore plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought in the plaint.
iii. Whether the recitals in Ex.D1 and the admissions elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1 act as an estoppel against plaintiffs from asserting title over the suit land?
iv. What order?
Findings on point nos.(i to iii):
10. Before this Court adverts to the plaintiffs title, it would be very relevant to extract Ex.P10, which is the hissa sketch relied on by the plaintiffs. The same would be
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR relevant to understand the topography of the subdivision of Sy.No..5. The sketch is extracted, which is as under:
91' 136' 136'
1 4 3 2
91' 136' 178'
11. On examining the sketch, it is clearly evident that to the east of Sy.No.5/1, Sy.No.5/4 is located. The next crucial document which needs to be examined is Ex.D47, which is a combined genealogical tree of one Hoody Nagappa and Kuri Pillanna. These two family trees which gives a comparative chart of two independent families not related to each other. The translated version of these family trees are also called out which would enable this Court to effectively understand the flow of title. The family trees are as under:
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
KURRI PILLANNA
NAGAPPA (LATE) THIMMAIAH (LATE) NYATAPPA (LATE)
SYAMANNA VENKATAPPA
(LATE) @ VENKATASWAMY
REDDY
VENKATAPPA HANUMAPPA NAGAPPA
(LATE) (LATE) (LATE)
S.KRISHNAREDDY WIFE THIMMAKKA
@ SARAKKI
THIMMAIAIAH
RATHNAMMA
RUKKAMMA
KRISHNAREDDY MUNIREDDY
(LATE)
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521
RFA No. 36 of 2011
HC-KAR
HOODY NAGAPPA (LATE)
MUNINANJAPPA RAMAIAH
REDDY REDDY
(LATE) (LATE)
YALLAMMA DODDASHAMMANNA CHIKKASHAMANNA NARAYANA SRINIVASA
(D-4) REDDY (D-1) REDDY (D-2) REDDY (D-3) (P-1)
NAGARATHNAMA NAGARJUN REDDY MUNIRATHNAMMA
(D-5) (D-3) (D-6)
12. On examining this family tree, the plaintiffs are asserting that suit land along with Sy.No.5/1 was originally owned by Hoody Nagappa. While defendant no.3 who is tracing title through Venkataswamy, who is the son of one Nyathappa (third son of Kuri Pillanna). On examining these family trees, this Court needs to examine as to whether the plaintiffs having filed a comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration had discharged burden and have
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR succeeded in proving the title over suit land bearing Sy.No.5/1. It is in this context this Court deems it fit to advert to Ex.D46 which is a plaint filed by the plaintiffs' father Muninanjappa Reddy seeking partition against his two brothers in O.S.19/1969. Item no.9 is Sy.No.5/1. Admittedly, Sy.No.5/4 is not the subject matter of the partition suit. One more crucial thing which cannot be ignored is the scheduled annexed to Sy.No.5/1. Admittedly, Sy.No.5/1 is bounded by the land owned by Venkataswamy on its eastern side. Therefore, this Court deemed it fit to extract the schedule of Sy.No.5/1 which would have a direct bearing on the plaintiffs claim over the present suit land. The same is extracted, which reads as under:
"(9) S.No. 5(1) 2 acres 36 guntas assessed Rs. 4-
7-0 bounded on East by Venkataswamy's land, West by _______, North by: Tuberahalli gundappa's land and South by: High Road. "
13. The next crucial document is Ex.D1 which is a sale deed executed by the plaintiffs' father, Nanjappa Reddy and his sons. The schedule annexed to the sale
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR deed is crucial and significant. Therefore, the schedule is extracted as under:
"Schedule: All that piece and parcel of agricultural dry land bearing S.No.5/1 situated at Thubarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring tow acres and thirthy guntas (2A 38 Gts) and assessed to Rs.4.34 Ps and bounded as follows: East by: land of Venkataswamy Reddy, West by land of Bhoomi Reddy, North by Bangalore Varthur Road, and South by land of G.Ramaiah Reddy."
14. On reading the schedule, the plaintiffs' father and plaintiffs while selling Sy.No.5/1 have candidly admitted that to the east of Sy.No.5/1, land owned by Venkataswamy is located. This disputed land is none other than Sy.No.5/4. Therefore, if the land situated on the eastern side of Sy.No.5/1 is scrutinized conjointly with Ex.P10 which is a hissa sketch prepared in 1929. As per the plaintiffs version, the plaintiffs have categorically admitted that the land bearing Sy.No.5/4 situated to the east of Sy.No.5/1 is owned by Venkataswamy. The decree passed in specific performance would also clinch the controversy in regard to title over Sy.No.5/4. The decree
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR reveals the boundaries of Sy.No.5/4. The same needs to be extracted which is as under:
"SCHEDULE:- Land measuring 26 guntas in Sy.No.5/4, of Thubarahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, bounded on the East by Shamaiah's land on the west by Muninanjareddy's land on the North by A.B.W.Ramaiah's land."
15. This Court also deems it fit to extract the crucial admissions elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1, which reads as under:
"It is true to suggest that my junior uncle said Ramaiah Reddy has filed OS 19/1969 on the file of Civil Judge, Bangalore City against my father deceased Muninan jappa Reddy, for partition, in respect of properties left by him grand father deceased Hoodi Nagappa. It is true that the said OS 19/1969 ended in a compromise. The present suit property namely sy No.5/4 of Tubarahalli measuring 26 guntas had not been included in the said partition suit by my paternal uncle deceased Ramaiah Reddy."
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. This court finds considerable force in the admission of P.W.1 that the comprehensive partition suit
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR in O.S.No.19/1969 was instituted by Ramaiah Reddy (junior uncle of the plaintiff) against the father of P.W.1 in-respect of the properties left behind by their common ancestor Hoody Nagappa and the suit terminated in compromise decree. What is of decisive importance is the unequivocal admission tendered by P.W.1 that the present suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.5/4 was not included in the said partition suit. This admission clearly demonstrates that at the time when ancestral properties were divided and rights were crystallized by way of a compromise decree the present suit property was never treated as joint family estate. The exclusion of the present suit property from O.S.No.19/1969 gives rise to strong presumption that the plaintiff's predecessor neither claimed nor possessed any right over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff are precluded from asserting a claim over the suit schedule property which admittedly stood outside the scope of 1969 partition.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR
17. The next crucial admission acknowledging the title of plaintiffs vendor over the suit schedule property can be gathered from the alienation done by the plaintiffs father relating to Sy.No.5/1. The same is extracted, which reads as under:
"It is true to suggest that 2 acres 38 guntas in sy No.5 now sub divided as sy.No.5/1 was allotted to the share of my deceased father Muni Nanjappa Reddy under the partition decree in OS No.19/1969 referred above. It is true to suggest that said 2 acres 38 guntas bearing sy No.5/1 of Tubarahalli was sold in favour of smt.Padma J. Reddy of Domlur under reg. Sale deed dt. 30/11/1984 as per the c.c. now read over to me. It is Ex.D1. In the said sale deed the eastern boundary of sy No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas sold in favour of Padma J. Reddy has been described as land of Venkataswamy Reddy."
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. The plaintiff has candidly admitted the boundaries indicated in the schedule pertaining to sale of Sy.No.5/1 dated 30.11.1984 marked at Ex.D.1. In the sale deed the description of eastern boundaries is shown as
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR land belonging to Venkataswamy Reddy which further lends credence to the fact that the plaintiffs family at undisputed point of time have acknowledged Venkataswamy Reddy's title over the Sy.No.5/4 property.
19. The third extract which depicts the conduct of plaintiff in subsequent partition and exclusion of Sy.No.5/4 would be crucial and the same is extracted as under:
"May be on the basis of AC's order the katha and Pahani of sy No.5/4 of Tubarahalli is written in the name of 3rd defendant Verges. It is true to suggest that the present defendant 4 and 5 filed partition suit against me in OS 4433/1994 on the file of City Civil court. It is not true to suggest that said sy No.5/4 of Tubarahalli was not included for partition in the said OS 4433/1994. It is true to suggest that on 21/8/2001 we effected a partition in respect of all out family properties. I now see Ex D4 it is cc. Xerox copy of the registered partition deed dt. 12/8/2001. It is true to suggest that we have not included the sy No.5/4 of Tubarahalli for partition under the said partition deed Ex D4."
[Emphasis Supplied]
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR
20. The underlined portion clinches the core issue that even in subsequent partition suit instituted in O.S.No.4433/1994 and registered partition deed dated 12.08.2001 which is evidenced at Ex.D.4, P.W.1 admits that the suit property bearing Sy.No.5/4 was not included either in the suit or in the partition deed. Therefore the repeated exclusion of the suit property right from 1969 suit till 1994 suit and subsequent partition deed effected in 2001 clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff ancestor and the present plaintiff never laid over the suit schedule property. This conduct conclusively disentitles the plaintiff from asserting title over the suit schedule property.
21. The acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA is also crucial piece of evidence demonstrating the plaintiffs conduct. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract the relevant portion, which reads as under:
"It is true to suggest that the BDA has issued notification u/s 4(1) of Land acquisition act proposing to acquire sy No.5/4 of Tubarahalli along with other
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR properties for the formation of layout of BEML employees co-operative society. We did not file any objection before the Spl.LAO BDA pursuant to the said Prl. Notification."
[Emphasis Supplied]
22. On reading the above extracted portion, P.W.1 has admitted that despite receipt of notice from BDA plaintiffs never tendered any objections asserting ownership and possessory rights. This passive conduct reinforces that plaintiff never asserted his title over the suit schedule property and only defendant no.3 questioned the acquisition proceedings by filing objections.
23. The next crucial admission demonstrates that, the plaintiff never asserted possession nor they were found to be in physical possession of the suit schedule property. This Court deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of cross examination of PW 1, which reads as under:
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR "It is true to suggest that the present 3rd defendant Vergees had filed OS No.8931/1980 against Sarakki Thimmakka (present 1st defendant) for specific performance of sale agreement dt.29/1/1980 executed by Sarakki Thimmakka's deceased husband in respect of sy No.5 (26 guntas) and for possession of that land. The said suit came to be decreed. It is true to suggest that the present 3rd defendant sought to execute the said decree, in Exn. case No.750/1995. It is true that in the said execution case No. 750/1995 I filed application u/o 1 R10 CPC. It is not true to suggest that the said application was dismissed by Exn. Court. It is true to suggest that on 5/43/1997 the present 3rd defendant Vergees took possession of present suit schedule property sy NO.5/4 by executing the delivery warrant issued in the said exn.Case No.750/1995, with police help."
24. The above extracted portion of the cross- examination of P.W.1 contains unequivocal and categorical admissions which go to the very root of the plaintiffs' case and are fatal to their claim. P.W.1 has candidly admitted that defendant No.3 had instituted Execution Petition No.750/1995 seeking enforcement of the decree passed in the suit for specific performance in respect of the suit
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR schedule property bearing Sy.No.5/4. What is more significant is the further admission that, pursuant to the delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court, possession of Sy.No.5/4 was in fact taken over by defendant No.3 on 05.03.1997 with the aid of police machinery. These admissions conclusively establish not only the lawful assertion of rights by defendant No.3 through due process of law, but also the factum of delivery of possession, thereby completely negating the plaintiffs' assertion of either subsisting possession or any enforceable right over the suit schedule property. Once delivery of possession is admitted, the plaintiffs' claim that they continued to be in possession or had a better right stands irretrievably demolished.
25. Dehors these categorical and damaging admissions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1, the plaintiffs have attempted to resile from their own statements by denying the possession of defendant No.3 in a later portion of the very same testimony. Such denial,
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR being plainly contrary to the earlier clear admissions regarding execution proceedings and delivery of possession with police assistance, cannot be accorded any evidentiary value. It is a settled principle that an admission is the best evidence against the maker, and a subsequent self-serving denial does not efface or dilute the binding effect of an earlier unequivocal admission. This vacillating and inconsistent stand adopted by the plaintiffs only reinforces the conclusion that their case lacks bona fides and credibility. The contradictory testimony of P.W.1, when read as a whole, clearly demonstrates an attempt to wriggle out of binding admissions, which this Court cannot countenance. Consequently, the plaintiffs' denial of defendant No.3's possession deserves to be rejected outright as an afterthought, intended solely to overcome the legal consequences flowing from their own admissions.
"It is false to suggest that one Sri Virgis is in possession of suit schedule property and I do not know about shops may be shops constructed were constructed recently."
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR
26. On a cumulative and holistic appreciation of the pleadings, oral testimony and documentary evidence on record, particularly the categorical and repeated admissions elicited from P.W.1, this Court finds that the plaintiffs' case is riddled with fatal inconsistencies and admissions striking at the very root of their claim of title. The evidence unmistakably demonstrates a consistent course of conduct on the part of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title in consciously excluding the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.5/4 from every material proceeding where title and rights over family properties were adjudicated or crystallized. The suit schedule property was conspicuously absent from the partition suit in O.S.No.19/1969, which culminated in a compromise decree; it was again excluded from the subsequent partition suit in O.S.No.4433/1994; and even under the registered partition deed dated 12.08.2001, the plaintiffs admittedly did not include Sy.No.5/4 for partition. Such
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR repeated exclusion, spanning several decades, cannot be brushed aside as inadvertent or accidental, but clearly evidences that neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors ever asserted ownership, possession, or any semblance of right over the suit schedule property.
27. Further, the recitals contained in the registered sale deed dated 30.11.1984, executed by the plaintiffs' father and under which Sy.No.5/1 was alienated, unequivocally acknowledge that the land situated on the eastern side of Sy.No.5/1 belonged to Venkataswamy Reddy, which land admittedly corresponds to Sy.No.5/4. These recitals amount to a clear admission of title in favour of the defendants' predecessor and operate as a binding acknowledgment against the plaintiffs, giving rise to an estoppel that precludes them from now asserting a contrary claim. The plaintiffs' conduct during the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA, wherein they admittedly did not file any objections asserting ownership or possession, further fortifies the inference that they
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR never regarded themselves as owners or persons interested in the suit schedule property.
28. Added to this is the decisive admission that possession of Sy.No.5/4 was delivered to defendant No.3 in execution of a decree for specific performance as early as 05.03.1997 with police assistance, which conclusively demolishes the plaintiffs' assertion of either title or possession. The subsequent attempts by the plaintiffs to deny the possession of defendant No.3 stand wholly contradicted by their own earlier admissions and the documentary record.
29. In the light of this overwhelming material, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to establish any semblance of title or lawful claim over the suit schedule property and that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are neither perverse nor erroneous. On the contrary, the rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendants, coupled with the binding admissions
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5521 RFA No. 36 of 2011 HC-KAR and conduct of the plaintiffs, decisively displaces the plaintiffs' case. Accordingly, point No.(i) stands answered in the negative, while point Nos.(ii) and (iii) are answered in the affirmative.
Finding on point no. (iv) :
30. In view of the foregoing reasons, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5