- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.757 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMU S/O LATE SUGATURAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT T. PURAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN-563102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.V.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAMATHA W/O VENKATARAMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. SRI. VENKATARAMAPPA S/O PAPISHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT T. PURAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-563102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISWESWARAIAH S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 - ABSENT) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.127/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.583/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR. 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 and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents is absent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property is that they are in lawful possession over the suit schedule property and also contend that defendant started interfering over the suit schedule property. 3. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit schedule property and the defendant's property originally belongs to the Government. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025 defendant filed application under Form No.53 before the Tahsildar, Kolar and the said application is still pending for adjudication. The defendant’s father was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years by growing seasonal crops. The plaintiffs have encroached 30 guntas of the defendant's property on the southern side and also created illegal documents and obstructed peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly the evidence of D.W.1, wherein he categorically admits that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and they have taken electricity connection and family members of Krishnappa are residing even today and taken note of admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 and also the material available on record and comes to the conclusion that possession of the plaintiffs has been established and also comes to the conclusion that interference is proved, since they are claiming that the property originally belongs to the Government and now contend that very same property is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025 allotted in their favour. When such admission is available before the Court, the Trial Court granted the relief of permanent injunction. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment granting the relief of permanent injunction, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.127/2023 and the First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that plaintiffs are in possession of the property and with regard to the interference and it requires interference of this Court. 5. The First Appellate Court having considered the material on record, particularly the admissions on the part of the witnesses, comes to the conclusion that possession is admitted and in paragraph No.33 comes to the conclusion that defendant's contention is that in Sy.No.34, 1 acre, 16 guntas of land is granted in his favour and the grant of land in favour of the defendant to an extent of 1 acre, 16 guntas is not disputed by the plaintiffs and defendant has also obtained decree in O.S. No.159/2005 in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. However, the decreetal of O.S.No.159/2005 will not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025 entitle the defendant to obstruct the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also having noticed that already there was a decree in respect of the property which was granted in favour of the appellant/defendant, which has also been considered by the First Appellate Court, taken note of admission on the part of D.Ws.1 to 3 in paragraph No.32 and when the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court. 6. The main contention of counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction and contend that suit schedule property is granted by the Tahsildar, Kolar vide LND.RUO.46/2002-03 and in terms of Ex.D1, Saguvali Chit was also issued and Exs.D3 and D4 are the judgments and the same have not been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while considering the material on record. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025 the admissions on the part of D.Ws.1 to 3, in the cross- examination categorically admitted that family of Krishnappa are still residing in the property i.e., in Khatha No.220 measuring 30 x 40 feet and D.W.1 categorically says that he had seen the house and in the said house itself, the plaintiffs are residing till date and when such admission was given and the same was also extracted in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 and the First Appellate Court also with regard to the very contention urged before this Court in respect of Ex.D1 Saguvali Chit is concerned, the same is also taken note of in paragraph Nos.33 that already even injunction was obtained by the appellant in O.S.No.159/2005 i.e. in respect of 1 acre, 16 guntas which was granted in favour of the defendant. When such being the case, question of admitting and framing substantial question of law in the present second appeal does not arise and both the question of fact and question of law was considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court since the said appeal being the Statutory appeal. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantial question of law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025 8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62