- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100342 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: SIRUGUPPA TALUK SRI. SIDDRAMESHWARA BHOVI SANGHA SITUATED AT DOOR NO.329/349, WARD NO.7, HUDKO ROAD, SIRUGUPPA TOWN, DIST. BALLARI. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT J. ESHWARAPPA S/O. THIMMANNA, AGE: 55 YEARS NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS NEW PRESIDENT N. YANKAPPA S/O. DURUGAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O. 7TH WARD, BHOVI COLONY, SIRUGUPPA-583121, DIST. BALLARI-583101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PATTANA PANCHAYATH, SIRUGUPPA-583101. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI-583101. 3. THE TAHASILDHAR SIRUGUPPA-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2016 IN R.A.NO.52/2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRUGUPPA AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA IN O.S.NO.109/2009. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.28 11:25:46 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Being aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment of the Trial Court (O.S.No.109/2009 dated 30.03.2013 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa) by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.52/2013 dated 12.02.2016, the plaintiff is before this Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is a Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1930 and it is in possession of a piece of land measuring 6300 square feet at Siruguppa. It is submitted that the possession of the plaintiff-Society was peaceful and long-standing and they have been paying the property tax to the Pattan Panchayat Siruguppa continuously for several years. The plaintiff- Association made an application for construction of Samudaya - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 Bhavana and other amenities for the purpose of welfare of its members and had paid all the property tax thereof. It is contented that the defendants, particularly the defendants No.2 and 3, were making hectic efforts to trespass in the premises of the plaintiff-Association and on 13.08.2009 at 08.30 p.m., they started demolition of one of the room which is at the southern side of the plaint schedule property. It is contented that they wanted to construct a Devaraj Urs Circle and their attempt was foiled by large number of people who were present at the spot. It is contented that such act of the defendants was illegal and therefore, there was a cause of action for the plaintiff-Society to file a suit. On the basis of such contention, the plaintiff-Society filed a suit for injunction against the defendants. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- plaintiff also submits that the suit was resisted by the defendants by contending that at no point of time, the defendants i.e. the Government or the Pattana Panchayat Siruguppa had either assigned, allotted or granted the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 schedule property to the plaintiff and therefore, there was no question of the defendants interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendants had denied the contentions of the plaintiff in total. 4. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues as below: i. Whether plaintiff proves that, suit schedule property has been assigned by the government for carry out the welfare of the plaintiff society? ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are tried to trespass into the premises of the plaintiff society and interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same? iii. What order or decree? 5. The plaintiff examined one of its official as PW1 and one witness as PW2. Exs.P1 to P12 were marked in evidence. The official of the defendant No.3 was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 6. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court had decreed the suit restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the defendants approached the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court by impugned judgment has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. It is a contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the possession of the plaintiff-Society was continuous and it was a settled possession. It is contended that various shops and other establishments are situated in the strip of the land which was assigned to the plaintiff by the Government. It is submitted that the possession of the plaintiff being a settled possession, the defendants could not have interfered with the same and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for injunction. He contends that the possession of the plaintiff is legal and continuous and as such, the First Appropriate Court erred in allowing the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 8. A careful perusal of the records would reveal that though the plaintiff-Society has filed several documents in support of its case, except the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2, there is nothing on record to show that the suit schedule property was allotted or assigned to the plaintiff-Society in any way. The Exs.P2 to P7 shows that the President of the plaintiff-Society had paid the property tax to the defendant No.3-Panchayat during the year 2005. Such payment is on the basis of a self-assessment made by the plaintiff-Society. The Ex.P8-Encumbrance Certificate shows that there was no such assignment or allotment which was recorded in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Exs.P9 and 10 are the sketches of the alleged buildings, but none of these documents have any endorsement that permission was accorded to the plaintiff for construction of the building. Exs.P11 and 12 are the Tax Assessment Register Extracts issued by the defendant No.3. 9. The testimony of the PW1 and PW2 show that the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property and in the cross-examination of PW1, there is a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 categorical admission that there are no documents showing any allotment or assignment by the Government or the Panchayat. The contention of the PW1 and PW2 is that there was an obstruction by the defendants and they had prepared for demolition of the structures that were present in the suit schedule property. These aspects are denied by the defendants and except the self-interested testimony of the PW1 and PW2, there is nothing on record to show that there was any obstruction by the defendants. The documents produced by the plaintiff show that there was no such assignment or allotment by the defendants in any way, but the plaintiff, only in the year 2005, has paid a certain building tax to the Panchayat, that too by a self-assessment. In no way, the defendant No.3 had acceded to the contention that the possession of the plaintiff was settled or legal. 10. The cross examination of DW1 would show that there are no records to show that the encroachment was mentioned in a Register kept for that purpose. It also shows that a suggestion was made to him that the plaintiff is in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 possession since more than 60 years and they have an intention to construct a Hostel. These suggestions are clearly denied by him. The contention of the plaintiff that they are in possession of the property for more than 60 years has no supportive documentary or acceptable oral evidence in this regard. The tax payment receipts pertain to the year 2005 only. Therefore, none of the documents established that there was any settled possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. 11. Obviously, the Trial Court has not bestowed its attention to the years for which the tax payment receipts pertain to. It simply came to the conclusion that the tax payment receipts are there and that shows the settled possession. It also holds that the version of the plaintiff that there was an effort for demolition of the suit schedule property is acceptable. It never looked into the cross- examination of the DW1 in this regard. Thirdly, it is relevant to note that the description of the suit property was sought to be amended by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 and such amendment was not carried out in the plaint. Obviously the unamended plaint describes the suit schedule property as Door No. 329/349, Ward No.7 Hudko Road, Siruguppa Town, measuring 31.5x200 feet. The boundaries and other description is not mentioned. It does not mention that there exist any buildings on it. 12. The First Appellate Court in its judgment has pointed out that the contention of the plaintiff that there was an allotment or assignment of the property by the defendants to the plaintiff-Society is bereft of evidence. It also notices that the description of the suit property is also incorrect and the plaintiff was not diligent in carrying out the amendment to the plaint. It is pointed out by the First Appellate Court that the material on record would not show that the plaintiff is in a settled possession of the suit schedule property. 13. From the above, it is clear that the First Appellate Court has rightly considered the evidence on record and it had pointed out the perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court. A person who is in possession of the property has to establish - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 that he is in settled possession and without any obstruction. The settled possession is one of the criteria on which the injunction may be sought. The plaintiff has not shown any material to show that he is in settled possession of the suit schedule property. Though, he contends in the cross- examination of the DW1 that the plaintiff is in possession since more than 60 years, not a piece of document except that pertains to the year 2005-2006 is produced. There is no any allotment or any acquiescence by the defendants towards the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The possession of the plaintiff cannot be said to be a legal possession so that he could seek an injunction. At no stretch of imagination, the possession of the plaintiff can be said to be a legal and settled possession. It appears that the plaintiff-Society is trying to grab a prime property by connivance with the local political leaders. Therefore, if at all any shed or structure has been constructed, it is unauthorized and it cannot be legalized in any way. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14139 RSA No. 100342 of 2016 14. It is also pertinent to note that the defendant No.3 has not initiated any action, even though there is squatting on the public property by the plaintiff. There is no such explanation by DW1 as to why the encroachment or squatting by the plaintiff was not resisted and no action was taken by them. If public property is left to be occupied without authorisation, it would be nothing but the dereliction of the duty by the concerned officials. Be that as it may, it is hoped that the defendant-Authorities would take appropriate action in the matter. 15. The above discussion would clearly show that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and no substantial question of law arises. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE RKM CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49