Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs, who are the sons of Poojari Lingappa. They claimed that their father purchased the suit property in 1958 and that they were in possession. Defendant No.1, who claimed to be the wife of the said Poojari Lingappa, got her name entered in the revenue records and sold a portion to defendant No.2. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.1 was not related to their father and had no right. The revenue dispute escalated to the High Court, which directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 64/1997 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madhugiri. The Trial Court, after examining evidence including the sale deed Ex.P1 and numerous witnesses, decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs proved title and possession and that defendant No.1 failed to prove her claim of being the purchaser's wife or the alleged fraud. The First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 17/2002 confirmed the decree, emphasizing that defendant No.1 had not taken timely legal action regarding the alleged misappropriation of the sale deed. The defendants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. Appellants' counsel argued that the lower courts failed to appreciate documentary evidence (Ex.P28, P31, P32) showing that defendant No.1's husband died 18-20 years earlier and that his name was Lingappa, which contradicted the plaintiffs' case. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment. The provided judgment text does not include the final decision or any substantive analysis of the legal questions. As a result, the outcome and ratio decidendi of the second appeal are not available.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Appellants challenged concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs had proved title and possession, and that defendants failed to establish their claims - Appellants argued that lower courts overlooked documentary evidence showing defendant No.1's husband died around 18-20 years ago with name Lingappa, contradicting plaintiffs' case - High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment, with outcome not provided in extracted text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower courts erred in law in decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction, and whether the appellants had raised any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 21
Regular Second Appeal No. 2341 of 2006 (DEC/INJ)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh
Sri. C.R. Gopalaswamy, Senior Counsel for Sri. G. Bhargav, Advocate for Appellant No.1(a); Sri. D.R. Rajashekarappa, Advocate for Appellant No.2; Sri. H.V. Harish, Advocate for R1, R2(a to d), R3 and R4
Smt. Lakkamma (since dead, by LR Sri. H. Shivanna), Sri. Muddanna
Sri. Poojari Lingappa, B.P.L. Muddanna (since dead, by LRs), Eranna, Rajanna P.L.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought declaration of their title to the suit schedule property and permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their possession.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs filed the suit as defendants got their names entered in revenue records and defendant No.1 created a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, claiming to be the widow of the original purchaser, while plaintiffs claimed title through their father who purchased the property in 1958.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs; First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. Both courts found that plaintiffs proved title and possession, and rejected defendants' claim of fraud and title.
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs prove that their father has acquired title to the suit property under the sale deed dated 21.08.1958 and from that date their father and the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that during the lifetime of their father, he has sold a portion of the same as pleaded in paragraph No.-2 of the plaint?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 2nd defendant has set up the 1st defendant to make a claim over the suit property and to knock of the same?
Whether the 1st defendant proves that her husband purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 21.08.1958 and thereafter her husband was in possession and subsequently after his death, the 1st defendant continued to be in possession of the property?
Whether the 1st defendant proves that her husband has sold a portion of the schedule property in favour of third parties?
Whether the 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff has played fraud on her as pleaded in paragraph No.-8 of the written statement?
Whether the 2nd defendant acquired valid title to 6 acres 14 guntas of land in the suit property through the 1st defendant?
Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below is opposed to law and facts as contended?
Whether there are any grounds for this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree?
Whether plaintiffs were not entitled for any relief's before the Court below as contended?
Submissions/Arguments
The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would vehemently contend that Courts below failed to notice that the documents produced by the plaintiffs themselves such as Ex.P28, P31 and P32 clearly show that the husband of the first defendant died about 18 to 20 years ago and the husband's name is shown as Lingappa and he died about 20 years back. The date of those documents are dated 26.06.1985. Similarly, DW3 to DW7 also stated that husband of the first defendant died about 18 to 20 years ago as on the date of their deposition.
Judgment Excerpts
The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration of their title ... is that their father Poojari Lingappa son of Poojari Muddappa had purchased the suit schedule property from one Karegowda under a registered sale deed dated 21.08.1958. (Para 3)
In this connection, defendant No.1 in her written statement has contended ... if such was the fact, defendant No.1 should have taken immediate action by filing a complaint against them or she should have taken any other legal action against them. (Para 10)
The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would vehemently contend that Courts below failed to notice that the documents produced by the plaintiffs themselves such as Ex.P28, P31 and P32 clearly show that the husband of the first defendant died about 18 to 20 years ago and the husband's name is shown as Lingappa and he died about 20 years back. (Para 13)
Procedural History
Plaintiffs initially approached revenue authorities, then filed writ petition in High Court (W.P.No.14348/1994) which directed them to approach Civil Court. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.64/1997 before Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madhugiri. Trial Court decreed suit on 19.04.2002. Defendants appealed to Fast Track Court-IV, Tumkur in R.A.No.17/2002, which dismissed appeal on 20.04.2006. Defendants then filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC before High Court of Karnataka. Appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 18.06.2026, and judgment pronounced on 03.07.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
