- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2019 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2019 (INJ) IN RSA No. 423/2019 BETWEEN: SRI. MARIJOGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE PATEL CHIKKASIDDEGOWDA ALIAS MOLLEGOWDA, R/AT K. HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 571 130. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKAMADAIAH, R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 571 130. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAN B.K, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W.ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 29.11.2018 PASSED IN RA NO.310/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT MYSURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.11.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.593/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MYSURU. IN RSA NO. 422/2019 BETWEEN: SRI. MARIJOGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE PATEL CHIKKASIDDEGOWDA ALIAS MOLLEGOWDA, R/AT K. HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 571 130. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESH B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O PUTTAMADAIAH, 2. SRI. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O PUTTAMADAIAH, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBI, MYSURU TALUK - 571 130. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC,1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.303/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.11.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.541/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MYSURU. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT The RSA.No.422/2019 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 passed in R.A No. 303/2018 by II Additional District Judge, Mysuru and RSA.No.423/2019 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 passed in R.A. No.310/2018 by II Additional District Judge, Mysuru 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellant was the defendant in O.S.No.541/2008 and O.S.No.593 /2008. The respondents were the plaintiffs in both suits. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed the suits against the defendant for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering in the plaintiffs' peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits that the suit schedule properties are the government lands, and they are in possession and cultivation, respectively, prior to 15.07.1991 under Bagar Hukkum. On 15.07.1991, plaintiff No.1, Chikkanna in O.S.No.541/2008 and the plaintiff in O.S.No. 593/2008, moved separate applications for regularisation of the Bagar Hukkum Cultivation. Plaintiff No.2 in O.S No. 541/2008 also filed a similar application for regularisation of the Bagar Hukkum Cultivation. The said applications are pending. It is contended that in the first week of September 2008, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective suit schedule properties. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 to file these separate suits for the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, pray to decree the suits. 4. The defendant filed the written statements in both suits with a common contention. He denied the entire averments made in the plaints, and further, contended that the respective suit schedule properties are imaginary and not identifiable. It is contended that suit Sy.No.16 consists of more lands than stated in the plaint. It is contended that his ancestors got Saguvali Chit to the extent of four acres of land in Sy.No.16 and as per revenue records, block No.7 in Sy.No.16 pertaining to said four acres, stood in the name of his grandmother by the name of Smt.Ningamma. After her demise in 1991, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of said four acres. Hence, prays to dismiss the suits. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and the additional issue. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 ISSUES in O.S.No.541/2008 1. Whether plaintiffs prove their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for? 4. What order or decree? ISSUES in O.S.No.593/2008 1. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed? 4. What order or decree? Additional Issue: Whether the description of the suit schedule property is proper and correct? 6. To substantiate their respective cases, plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No. 541/2008 was examined as PW1, examined 1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 witness as PW2 and marked 4 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.593/2008 examined himself as PW1 and marked one document as Ex.P1. On the other hand, the defendant was examined himself as DW1 and marked 10 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. Both the suits were clubbed together. 7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues in O.S.No.591/ 2008 i.e. issues No.1 to 3 in the negative, issue No.4 as per the final order, and in OS No.593/2008 i.e., issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue in the negative, issue No.4 as per the final order. Both suits were dismissed vide judgment dated 10.11.2017. Plaintiffs in both suits, aggrieved by the common judgment and decree, passed in O.S.No.541/2008 and O.S.No.593/2008, preferred the appeals in R.A No.303/2018 and R.A No. 310/2018 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Mysuru. Both appeals were clubbed together. After hearing the learned Counsel for the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 parties the first appellate Court framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the lower Court was justified in holding that suit properties are not identifiable? 2. Whether the lower Court was justified in holding that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the respective suit properties? 3. Whether there is interference with plaintiffs' possession over the suit properties? 4. Whether sufficient causes shown to allow I.A.No.II filed in both the appeals? 5. What order? 8. The First Appellate Court on re-assessment of verbal and documentary evidence answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, point No.3 in the affirmative, point No.4 does not survive for consideration, point No.5 as per the final order. Both appeals were allowed with costs vide Common judgment and set aside the Judgment passed in O.S.No.541/2008 and in O.S.No.593/2008 and consequently decreed the suits of the plaintiff and the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession over the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 suit schedule properties as described in the respective plaint schedules. The defendant, aggrieved by the common judgment, passed in R.A.No.303/2018 and R.A.No.310/2018, filed these Regular Second Appeals. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant and the plaintiffs. 10. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiffs have suppressed regarding the rejection of an application for regularization of Bagar Hukkum Cultivation. He submits that there is a serious dispute regarding the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. He also submits that Ex.P1 does not disclose the extent of land and also he submits that there is a dispute regarding the location of the suit schedule properties, whether suit survey No.16, situated in Bommanahalli or under Manikyapura. He submits that in a suit for a bare injunction, scope of the suit is very limited. The first appellate Court, without considering the said aspect, has passed the impugned judgment. He further - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 submits that the defendant has filed an application for production of an additional documents to demonstrate that the application filed by the plaintiffs for regularisation came to be rejected by the Competent Authorities. He submits that the plaintiffs have suppressed regarding the rejection of their applications for regularisation. He submits that the injunction stood in an equitable relief, can be granted to the person who comes to the Court with a clean hand. He submits that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with a clean hands. He submits that the plaintiffs are guilty of suppressing the material facts. Hence, he submits that the application filed by the defendant for production of additional evidence may be allowed and the matter may be remitted to the Trial Court with a liberty to the parties to lead further evidence. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supports the impugned judgment and contended that the plaintiffs are in possession of the respective properties. It is contended that the name of the plaintiffs are appearing in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 the revenue records. They submits that the first appellate Court considering the entire materials on record was justified in passing the impudent judgment. Hence, on these grounds, they prays to reject the IA and also dismiss the appeals. 12. This court admitted the appeal on 19.03.2025 to consider the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the first appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit for mere perpetual injunction when there being no relief sought for declaration of title of the plaintiff when there is a bonafide dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the appellate Court was justified in reversing judgment and decree passed by the trial Court? This Court vide order dated 22.04.2025 framed the following additional substantial question of law: 3. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to allow the application for production of additional evidence?" - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 Reg. Substantial question of law No.3 13. It is the case of the plaintiffs in both suits that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties adversely in the respective properties. The plaintiffs have filed applications for the regularisation of their occupation. The said application is pending for consideration. The defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. On the other hand, the defendant has denied that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The defendant, to demonstrate that the applications filed by the plaintiffs for regularisation was dismissed, has produced the copy of the order passed by the Competent Authority. From the perusal of the proposed documents produced by the defendant, which discloses that the applications filed by the plaintiffs came to be rejected in the year 2002, but the plaintiffs in their respective suits, have suppressed regarding the rejection of the applications. The defendant and the plaintiffs are claiming - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 to be in possession of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs contended that their application is pending for consideration, but the application came to be rejected by the Competent Authorities. The defendant has not produced the said documents before the trial Court and the first appellate court. The proposed documents owe to the route of the case. If the said documents are taken on record, the Court can come to the conclusion, whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties or not. 14. The defendant has shown the reasons for not producing the said documents before the trial Court stating that the latest RTC regarding the suit schedule properties, now stands in the name of his grandmother Ningamma and claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land based on the grant made in favour of his grandmother. It was continued in the name of his grandmother. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the trial court was pleased to dismiss both suits. It is stated that the first appellate - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 court, without considering the said aspects, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is stated that findings of the first appellate court is contrary to the records. The only documents which the plaintiffs have produced are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 for which the Thasildar gave an endorsement that their applications were disposed of in 2002. Therefore the plaintiffs neither in possession nor can claim a right on the basis of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 especially when their applications were disposed of. The said documents could not be produced before the trial court or the first appellate court as he was not aware about the disposal of the claim of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in both the suits are claiming to be in possession of unauthorized occupation of government lands and it is contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties but from the perusal of the documents produced by the defendant, which discloses that the applications filed by the plaintiffs came to be rejected in 2002. The said documents goes to the route of the case to establish whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 Without the said documents, the court cannot pass the judgment. The application for production of additional documents, produced by the defendant needs to be allowed. The defendant has fulfilled the essential ingredients as per Order 41 rule 27 of CPC. In view of the above discussions, I answer substantial question of law No.3 in the affirmative. As this Court has allowed the application for production of additional evidence, the matter requires for reconsideration by the Trial Court. In view of the above discussions, the question of considering substantial questions No.1 and 2 does not arise at this point of time. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER 1. Appeals are allowed. 2. The impugned hereby are hereby set aside. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 3. IA.No.2/2025 is allowed. The documents are taken on record. 4. The suit in O.S.No.541/2008 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru is restored to its original file. 5. The liberty is reserved to the parties to lead further evidence on additional documents. The Trial Court thereafter shall pass an appropriate judgment in accordance with law. 6. This Court does not made any adjudication on merits. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21.07.2025 without awaiting any further notice. 8. In view of the disposal of the appeals, pending consideration of IA's No. 1/25, 2/19, 3/25 do - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16984 RSA No. 423 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 422 of 2019 not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK