SRI MADEGOWDA @ SANNEGOWDA vs SRI L RAJANNA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1871 OF 2007

BETWEEN:





1.


SRI MADEGOWDA
@ SANNEGOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs

SRI MAHADEVU
S/O LATE MADEGOWDA
AGE 53 YEARS
R/AT MUGANAHUNDI VILLAGE
NAGARTHAHALLI DAKLE
JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.

2. SRI KENCHAPPA
S/O LATE SRI MADEGOWDA
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT MUGANAHUNDI VILLAGE
NAGARTHAHALLI DAKLE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.

3. SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE SRI MADEGOWDA
AGE:40 YEARS,
R/AT MUGANAHUNDI VILLAGE,
NAGARTHAHALLI DAKLE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANIKETAN SUVVI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI .H.K, ADVOCATE)











Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



AND:





1.



2.
SRI L RAJANNA
S/O LATE LAKKAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRs

SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE L. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

SRI. R. VINAY KUMAR
S/O L. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT
TH
NO.2358, 10 CROSS
BASAVESWARA ROAD
K.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 001.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH .B, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2007 PASSED IN
RA.NO.44/2006 (OLD.NO.274/98) ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, MYSORE,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 21.09.1998 PASSED IN OS.NO.253/1995
ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) MYSORE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM


Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful
defendant, now represented by his legal heirs, assailing
the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff
seeking redemption of mortgage and recovery of
possession of the suit schedule property has been
decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid
repetition, the parties are referred to as per their rank
before the Trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal are as
follows:
The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.253/1995
seeking redemption of mortgage and recovery of
possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff
specifically contended that, owing to legal necessity, he
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007





was in need of a sum of 1,400/- and, accordingly, offered
to mortgage the suit land in favour of the defendant, who
agreed to advance the said amount against security.


Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff borrowed a sum of 1,400/-
and executed a mortgage deed dated 06.05.1964, handing
over possession of the suit schedule property to the
defendant in terms of the said mortgage transaction.
4. The plaintiff further contended that the period
stipulated for redemption was eight years from the date of
execution of the mortgage deed, which expired on
06.05.1972. According to the plaintiff, despite repeated
requests to the defendant to receive the mortgage amount
and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule
property, the defendant continued to postpone the matter
and failed to redeem the mortgage by accepting
repayment of the mortgage money and restoring
possession. As the defendant did not accede to the
plaintiff’s request despite issuance of a legal notice, the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



plaintiff instituted the present suit, asserting his readiness
and willingness to discharge the mortgage liability and
seeking redemption of the mortgage and recovery of
possession.
5. The defendant, upon service of summons,
entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a
written statement, stoutly denying the material averments
made in the plaint. The principal defence set up by the
defendant was that his possession of the suit schedule
property was independent of the mortgage transaction. It
was specifically contended that the defendant had been
inducted as a tenant over the suit land much prior to the
execution of the mortgage deed dated 06.05.1964 and
that his possession continued in his capacity as a tenant.
On this premise, the defendant disputed the plaintiff’s
entitlement to seek redemption of the mortgage and
recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial
Court framed appropriate issues and called upon the
parties to substantiate their respective claims by adducing
oral and documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of the
evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit,
holding that possession of the suit schedule property had
been delivered to the defendant pursuant to the execution
of the registered mortgage deed for a consideration of


1,400/-. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, the original defendant preferred an appeal
before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.44/2006.
7. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court
of fact, independently re-appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence on record. While examining the
defendant’s plea of tenancy, the Appellate Court noticed
that the defendant’s claim for occupancy rights in respect
of the suit land had been negatived by the Land Tribunal,
which had rejected the application filed in Form No.7
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



insofar as the suit land was concerned. Upon independent
appraisal of the evidence and the findings recorded by the
Trial Court, the First Appellate Court concurred with the
reasoning and conclusions of the Trial Court.
Consequently, the appeal in R.A.No.44/2006 came to be
dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree
granting redemption of mortgage in favour of the plaintiff.
8. This Court, by order dated 29.07.2008,
admitted the present appeal for consideration of the
following substantial question of law:
“Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the courts below are justified in
entertaining the suit when the matter was
pending before the Land Tribunal for grant of
occupancy rights in pursuance of Ex.D-3?”

Finding on substantial question of law:
9. Though the substantial question of law framed
by this Court is confined to the maintainability of the suit
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



for redemption of mortgage in the context of the
defendant’s claim for grant of occupancy rights, the
learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the original
defendant has vehemently contended that the suit itself
was hopelessly barred by limitation. It is argued that the
mortgage deed was executed on 06.05.1964, whereas the
suit came to be instituted in the year 1995. However, this
Court notices that no specific plea of limitation was raised
by the original defendant in the written statement filed
before the Trial Court. Nevertheless, having regard to the
contention urged before this Court, the relevant pleadings
and the dates borne out by the record require
consideration.
10. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite
to extract paragraph 2 of the written statement filed by
the original defendant. The same reads as under:
“2. It is false to say that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner of the land more fully described in the
schedule, but it is true that the plaintiff was the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



owner of the property and he has mortgaged the
same to the defendant. It was duly registered on
6.5.1964. But it is false to say that the possession of
the property was given to the defendant in
pursuance of the Deed of Mortgage. The defendant
submits that prior to the mortgage deed the
defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff and he
was paying Gutta to the plaintiff and he obtained
receipt for having paid the gutta dated 3.4.1962 and
3.3.63. Hence the defendant was a tenant under the
plaintiff.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. A plain reading of the above extracted
paragraph makes it evident that the original defendant
unequivocally admitted the execution of the mortgage
deed dated 06.05.1964. The defence set up was that his
possession of the suit land was not pursuant to the
mortgage transaction but was referable to an independent
relationship of landlord and tenant that allegedly existed
between the parties prior to the execution of the mortgage
deed. On the strength of this alternative plea, the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



defendant sought to resist the suit for redemption of
mortgage.
12. However, the defendant himself produced the
order passed by the Land Tribunal, marked as Ex.D-3, to
substantiate his claim for occupancy rights. A perusal of
the said order indicates that the defendant was conferred
with occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 2 acres
and 4 guntas in Survey No.75/1. The claim in respect of
the remaining extent, which forms the subject matter of
the present mortgage dispute, was rejected. Significantly,
the defendant’s claim for occupancy rights was not
accepted insofar as the land covered by the mortgage
transaction and forming the subject matter of the present
suit is concerned. This factual position, as noticed by the
First Appellate Court, also finds support in the admissions
elicited from the defendant during cross-examination.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants has also
sought to contend that the suit for redemption of
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



mortgage is barred by limitation. As already noticed, the
original defendant did not raise a specific plea of limitation
in the written statement. Even otherwise, the dates borne
out by the record do not support the contention advanced
on behalf of the appellants.
14. Admittedly, the registered mortgage deed was
executed on 06.05.1964, stipulating a period of eight
years for repayment of the mortgage money and
redemption of the mortgage. The said period expired on
06.05.1972. The plaintiff thereafter issued a legal notice
dated 29.06.1995 and instituted the present suit seeking
redemption of the mortgage and recovery of possession.
15. The claim for redemption of a mortgage is
governed by Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963,
which prescribes a period of thirty years for a suit by a
mortgagor to redeem or recover possession of immovable
property mortgaged, commencing from the date when the
right to redeem or recover possession accrues. In the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



present case, the stipulated period for redemption expired
on 06.05.1972, and the suit was instituted in 1995, well
within the prescribed period of thirty years. Consequently,
the contention that the suit is barred by limitation is
devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.
16. The reference to Sections 67 and 68 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in this context does not
alter the above conclusion. Those provisions deal with the
rights and remedies available to a mortgagee, including
foreclosure or sale, where applicable, and the
circumstances in which a mortgagee may sue for the
mortgage money. The question of limitation governing the
present suit must, however, be determined with reference
to the provision specifically applicable to a suit for
redemption instituted by the mortgagor.
17. This Court admitted the present appeal to
examine the maintainability of the suit for redemption of
mortgage in the light of the defendant’s claim for
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



occupancy rights, evidenced by Ex.D-3. Both the Courts
below have considered the said document and
concurrently found that the defendant succeeded in
securing occupancy rights only in respect of an extent of 2
acres and 4 guntas in Survey No.75/1.
18. The defendant’s own case before the Land
Tribunal was confined to a claim for occupancy rights in
respect of the aforesaid extent, out of the total extent of 5
acres and 4 guntas in Survey No.75/1. The grant of
occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961, and the consequential vesting contemplated under
Section 44 thereof must necessarily be confined to the
land in respect of which such rights were granted. The
grant cannot be extended to the remaining extent merely
because it forms part of the same survey number.
19. In the present case, the defendant’s claim for
occupancy rights in respect of the land covered by the
mortgage transaction was rejected by the Land Tribunal.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



Consequently, the defendant cannot rely upon the grant of
occupancy rights in respect of 2 acres and 4 guntas to
defeat the plaintiff’s right to seek redemption of the
mortgage over the remaining land, which is the subject
matter of the present suit.
20. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts
below are supported by the documentary evidence on
record, the order of the Land Tribunal marked as Ex.D-3,
and the categorical admission of the mortgage transaction
in paragraph 2 of the written statement. The defendant
having failed to establish an independent tenancy in
respect of the suit schedule property, the Courts below
were justified in rejecting the defence and decreeing the
suit for redemption of mortgage.
21. The learned counsel for the appellants has also
made a belated attempt to contend that the mortgage
deed itself was not produced before the Trial Court and,
therefore, the suit could not have been decreed. This
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



contention does not merit acceptance. As noticed supra,
the original defendant has unequivocally admitted the
execution and registration of the mortgage deed dated
06.05.1964 in paragraph 2 of the written statement. The
dispute raised by the defendant was essentially with
regard to the nature and character of his possession,
which he sought to attribute to an independent tenancy
rather than to the mortgage transaction. Having regard to
the categorical admission of the mortgage transaction and
the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellants cannot
now successfully assail the decree solely on the ground
that the mortgage deed was not produced.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent judgments
and decrees passed by the Courts below. The substantial
question of law is accordingly answered in the
Affirmative
, against the appellants and in favour of the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55955
RSA No. 1871 of 2007


CNR: KAHC010430212007



plaintiff, holding that the pendency of proceedings before
the Land Tribunal and the grant of occupancy rights in
respect of a distinct extent of land do not render the suit
for redemption of mortgage, insofar as the suit schedule
property is concerned, not maintainable.
23. Consequently, the second appeal stands
dismissed
, and the concurrent judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below are affirmed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE





CA
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4