- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 1443 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. THE PADUPANAMBUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PADUPANAMBUR VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574146. …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KOOSU D. KUNDER AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R2 TO R5 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R1 AS PER ORDER DATED 08.11.2024. 2. SMT.SUGANDHI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. SMT. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. SATHISHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 RESPONDENT No.1 IS THE WIFE AND Nos. 2 TO 5 ARE ALL THE CHILDRENS OF LATE DOOMA MADIVALA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SUBRAMANYA NIVAS, KAMBALABETTU, 10 THOKUR VILLAG, HALEYANGADY POST-574146. MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.11.2024 R2 TO R5 ARE LR'S OF R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 6/7/2014 PASSED IN R.A.No 21/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.2.2013 PASSED IN OS No.40/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MOODBIDRI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2014 passed in R.A. No.21/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M. Karkala and the judgment and decree dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 14.02.2013 passed in O.S. No. 40/2009 by the learned Civil Judge and J. M. F. C. Moodbidri. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on that rankings before the trial Court. Appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows, The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from trespassing into plaint A schedule property etc. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property and the ancestors had made improvements to the suit schedule 'A' property. It is contended that the defendant panchayath, is acting under the influence of local politicians who are not on good terms with the plaintiffs and are agitating to take forcible possession of plaint A schedule property from the plaintiffs. The defendant panchayath and the other - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 officials attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint A schedule property. Hence, the cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, pray to decree the suit. 4. The defendant panchayath, filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs filed an identical suit in O.S. No.196/1998 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mangalore for declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired the title over suit property by way of adverse possession. The plaint was returned to present before the jurisdictional Court. The plaintiffs did not take any steps and the suit was closed. Hence, it is contended that the present suit is hit by the Doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. 6. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and marked 20 documents as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 Exs.P1 to P20. In rebuttal, the Secretary of the defendant panchayath, was examined as DW.1 and marked 12 documents as Exs.D1 to D12. 7. The trial Court, after recording evidence and on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 14.02.2013 and restrained the defendant panchayath, by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property, destroying its enclosures or improvements or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and also restrained in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property by the plaintiffs. 8. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment passed in O.S. No. 40/2009, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.21/2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., Karkala. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the relevant points for consideration. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 06.07.2014. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. 11. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit schedule property is government land, and the name of the government appears in the revenue records. He submits that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He further submits that the plaintiffs have given up their rights regarding the title based on adverse possession. Hence, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit. On the contrary, decreed the suit and granted a perpetual - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 injunction. He submits that in case if this Court dismisses the appeal, a liberty may be reserved to the defendant to recover the possession by due process of law. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant. 13. The plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property. At the instigation of local politicians, the defendant is trying to trespass into plaint A schedule property and tied to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule 'A' property. 14. To prove possession of over the suit 'A' schedule property, the plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. Further, on the other hand, the officer of the defendant was examined as DW1. DW1 has categorically admitted regarding documents at Exs.P2 and P3 i.e., the order passed by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 Deputy Commissioner, which discloses that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of A schedule property. 15. On the other hand, the defendant has not produced any records to disprove the documents produced by the plaintiffs. It is settled law that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs are required to prove their possession and interference. The plaintiffs, by producing Exs.P2 and P3, which disclose their possession over the suit schedule property have proved their possession over suit ‘A’ schedule property. 16. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit ‘A’ schedule property and also the interference of the defendant in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit ‘A’ schedule property and the defendant is interfering with, and trespassing into the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19736 RSA No. 1443 of 2014 plaint A schedule property. Both Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgments and the decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. The Liberty is reserved to the defendant to recover the possession of A schedule property from the plaintiffs by due process of law, if so desire. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending IA’s of any, stands disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE VBS/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16