HANUMANTHAPPA v. MR. P.B. NAGARAJ

MR. P.B. NAGARAJ S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCC: COOLI WORKER IN BAKERY R/O NITTUVALLI ROAD, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL DAVANAGERE-577002 (V/O DTD: 24.10.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT H/S) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021 HC-KAR THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.82/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN OS No.477/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This regular second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court.

3. The trial Court granted the relief of permanent injunction, however, it dismissed the suit for declaration. The same was challenged by the appellant/defendant before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, having - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021 HC-KAR reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, framed the following points for considerations. I. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful position and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? II. Whether impugned judgment and decree passed by the Learned Prl.Civil Judge, Davanagere, in O.S.No.477/2011, dated 01.07.2019 is illegal, perverse and liable to be set and aside? III. What order or decree

4. On reassessing both oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court, in detail paragraph Nos.17 and 18, discussed that the property claimed by the defendant and also the plaintiff's property are different, but both are adjacent to each other and with regard to the encroachment attempt made by the plaintiff was not substantiated. Accordingly, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021 HC-KAR

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court and Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The main contentions of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is "whether the trial Court is justified in allowing the suit partly filed by the respondent and dismissing the regular appeal by the appellate Court by confirming the findings of the fact arrived at by the trial Court at the first instance".

7. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly applied their minds. Accordingly, to the appellant, when the plaintiff is making an attempt to interfere with the appellant's property and the he already obtained a decree in respect - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021 HC-KAR of his property in O.S No.162/1992 and when such being the case, the trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction.

8. Having heard the appellant counsel and having perused the grounds urged in the second appeal and also considering the schedule mentioned in the plaint in OS No. 477/2011, the suit was filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. Admittedly, the relief of declaration was not granted, but the injunction was granted in respect of the property bearing Sy No.101/1A 4P, measuring 20 X 36+49/2, with the boundaries described in the schedule.

9. It is the specific case of the defendant is that he had filed a suit in OS No.162/1992 and obtained a judgment and decree against Lakshmamma, Dyammavva and Duggamma, for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect to, 2 ¾ guntas of Sy.No.101/2A declaring him the owner. Both the trial Court as well as Appellate Court taken note of the fact that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021 HC-KAR the boundary which has been described in the schedule in the original suit and also the claim made by the defendant are different property and the same is also taken note of by the trial Court while considering. The material on record from paragraph Nos.13 to 16 and so also the appellate Court in its judgment in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 concluded that the claim made by the defendant /appellant is in respect of different property and not in respect of the property which the plaintiff has claimed. However, comes to the conclusion that both the properties are adjacent to each other and when such property is identified and also granted the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule which the plaintiff claimed and also the contention of the defendant is also in respect of the different survey number and different schedule and when such being the case the very contention of the counsel cannot be accepted.

10. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021 HC-KAR Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others, contending that when title is in dispute, a relief of injunction ought not to have been granted. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment particularly in paragraph Nos.14 to 16 of the judgment of Anantula Sudhakar's case is concerned and it is very specifically observed by the Apex Court that when there is a dispute with regard to the title is concerned and cloud on the title and then judgment of Anantula Sudhakar's will come into play. But in the case on hand, the properties are different and claim made by the appellant is also different and his survey number is different. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law and there is no any perversity in the finding of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and hence no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021 HC-KAR ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ASN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26