- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12273 RSA No. 710 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.710 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI R.D. THIPPESWAMY S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/A 5TH CROSS, J.C.R. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N.B. THIPPESWAMY S/O N. BASANNA AGED ABOUIT 38 YEARS, 2. SRI N.B. ASHOK, S/O N. BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SRI THIPPESWAMY, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, 4. SRI N. BASAPPA, S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKAPPANAHALLY, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 17.03.2006 R3 IS DISMISSED BEFORE TRIAL COURT; V/O DATED 22.03.2025 APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST - R1 AND R4) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2015 PASSED IN RA NO. 13/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 104/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN.) CJM CHITRADURGA. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12273 RSA No. 710 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 03.03.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga ('First Appellate Court' for short), in R.A.no.13/2011 and judgment and decree dated 07.12.2010 passed by Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) C.J.M., Chitradurga ('Trial Court' for short), in O.S.no.104/2005, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel submitted that appellant herein was plaintiff in O.S.no.104/2005 filed for declaration that plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property and for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing No.50/2 measuring 9 acres assessed at Rs.15.28 situated in Sulthanipura, Chitradurga Taluk ('Suit Property' for short). 3. It was submitted, on contest, trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of both parties and considering material on record, decreed suit in part by granting relief of declaration that plaintiff is absolute owner and in possession of land bearing Sy.no.50/2, measuring 9 acres of Sulthanipura. However, relief of permanent injunction was rejected. Decree attained finality insofar as defendants. Only plaintiff filed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12273 RSA No. 710 of 2015 R.A.no.13/2011 challenging rejection for relief of permanent injunction. But, appeal came to be dismissed leading to this appeal. sLearned counsel submitted that both Courts concurrently erred in refusing for relief of permanent injunction and prayed for allowing appeal. 4. On other hand, Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, learned counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 4 opposed appeal. It was submitted, appeal is dismissed as abated against respondents no.1 and 4 and plaintiff got it dismissed against defendant no.3/respondent no.3 before trial Court. It was also submitted finding of both Courts were concurrent. Hence, no interference was called for. 5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree and record. 6. Perusal of judgment and decree passed by trial Court would reveal that plaintiff had indeed got suit dismissed as not pressed against respondent no.3 - Thippeswamy S/o Siddappa. It is seen before this Court, appeal is dismissed as abated against respondents no.1 and 4 i.e. N.B. Thippeswamy and N. Basappa respectively. Though, learned counsel for appellant has sought to contend that finding of both Courts rejecting relief of permanent injunction is not in accordance - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12273 RSA No. 710 of 2015 with law, it is seen that denial of relief for permanent injunction is based on finding of issue no.3 about failure to prove illegal interference. But findings on issue no.1 about proof of title and issue no.2 - proof of possession are answered in favour of plaintiff. 7. Thus, on ground that findings insofar as failure to prove illegal interference being concurrent as well as on ground that appeal is dismissed as abated against respondents no.1 and 4, with observation that plaintiff would be entitled to protect his possession on basis of declaration of title and in case of any interference, file fresh suit for injunction. Appeal is disposed of holding that no interference is warranted. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41