The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1718 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: RAMU S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT: JANATHA COLONY KUVEMPU NAGARA, NAGASAMUDRA ROAD CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 572 301. (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: C.N. RAMESH S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KOTHANAGHATTA VILLAGE SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 572 301. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET AISDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.85/2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA DATED 14.11.2022 AND THE JUDGMENT IN R.A.NO.05/2023 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DATED 01.10.2024. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the Judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024 passed in R.A No.5/2023 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan and the Judgment and decree dated 14.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.85/2017 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was granted by the Government in his - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 favour. The plaintiff had constructed a house in the suit schedule property and started residing in the suit schedule property with his family members. The katha is standing in the name of the plaintiff, and he is paying tax to the concerned Authority regularly. The defendant without any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff complained to the concerned jurisdictional police and Municipal Authority. Despite lodging the complaint, the defendant did not stop interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed the written statement
Legal Reasoning
denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit schedule property was initially granted in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 favour of one Rangappa S/o Nanjappa by the Municipality, Channarayapatna. It is further contended that his mother- Smt. Lakshmamma purchased the suit schedule property from the said Rangappa on 24.10.1994, and his mother was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After her demise, the defendant and his family members continued to posses and enjoy the suit schedule property as the absolute owners. It is further contended that the plaintiff without any right, tile and possession over the said property, caused interference to the defendant’s possession and hence, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.91/2017 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna. The plaintiff, by creating and concocting certain documents, filed this false suit, against the defendant without impleading Municipal Authority as a party to the suit. Hence, the defendant has prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff, to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and marked 29 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1, examined one witness as D.W.2 and marked 26 documents as Exs.D1 to D26. The Trial Court, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 14.11.2022. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.85/2017, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.5/2023, on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Channarayapatna, Hassan. 6. The First Appellate Court, on the re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 01.10.2024, confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, passed by the First Appellate Court, filed this regular second appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is an absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the same was granted by the Government in his favour. The plaintiff constructed a house and started residing in the same along with his family members by paying necessary tax regularly. The fact being so, the defendant without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff has produced the records to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have not properly considered the documents produced by the plaintiff and committed error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prays to allow the appeal. 9. Perused the records and considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, was examined himself as P.W.1, and he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and proved that the suit schedule property was granted by the Government in his favour. The plaintiff has produced 29 documents as Ex.P.1 to P29. The plaintiff also examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to P.W.1 that the plaintiff lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police and municipality, stating that the defendant had illegally tress passed into the suit schedule property. The said suggestion was admitted by the plaintiff. 11. In rebuttal, the defendant has examined himself as D.W.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments made in the examination-in-chief, and to prove the possession over the suit schedule property, he produced 26 documents as Ex.D.1 to D26. Ex.D.22 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Municipal Authority which discloses that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 defendant’s mother was in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the defendant has also produced a certified copy of the complaint marked as Ex.D.25 wherein the plaintiff admitted that the defendant has illegally trespassed over the suit schedule property and acquired the said property. In view of Ex.D.25, which clearly discloses that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that when did the defendant’s mother vacated and handed over the possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has failed to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as of the date of institution of the suit. 12. It is settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession, over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit and alleged interference. As observed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. When the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, the question of interference by the defendant, does not arise. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the findings of the facts that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and passed the impugned judgment. Hence, I do not find any errors in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below or any substantial questions of law that arise for consideration, in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the cost. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9381 RSA No. 1718 of 2024 In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23