- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1237 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: ASHITHA S/O ROOPKUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT ANUGHATTA VILLAGE AND POST AREHALLY HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -571 115 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE) AND: M R BHARATHI W/O S SWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, AND R/AT J P NAGAR, BELUR TOWN HASSAN-573115 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.32/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUAR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.67/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2022 passed in R.A. No.32 of 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur, and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.67 of 2012 dated 01.06.2018 by the learned Civil Judge, Belur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.2 and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and the same was acquired by her under a registered sale deed dated 04.08.2004 for valuable consideration. 5. It is contended by the plaintiff that after the purchase of the suit property, she had constructed a RCC building by leaving space in the front and backyard and is covered by the compound wall. She averred that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and is paying the municipality tax regarding the suit property. The defendants have no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property. It is contended that the defendants who are intending to purchase the adjacent property of the plaintiff, tried to snatch the property belonging to the plaintiff, and attempted to cause interference regarding peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 6. Further, it is stated by the plaintiff that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, and are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 7. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement and defendant No.1 filed a memo adopting a written statement filed by defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 in his written statement denied the averments made in the plaint, and contended that defendant No.1 purchased the property measuring east-west 120 feet and north-south 50 feet through a registered sale deed dated 05.11.1997 from his vendor. Subsequently, defendant No.1 gifted the said property in favour of defendant No.2 as per the gift deed dated 17.01.2008. The defendants have dug - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 the trench and erected stone poles on all four corners of their property. The southern trench bifurcated the property belonging to them and the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As defendant No.2 had acquired the property by virtue of a gift deed dated 17.01.2008, all revenue records stand in the name of defendant No.2. It is contended that the plaintiff’s property is situated to the south of the defendant’s property, and the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the land in excess to the area to which a compound wall is erected by her. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined the general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 PW-1, and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-15. 10. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1, and marked 11 documents as Exhibits D-1 to D-11. 11. The Trial Court, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 01.06.2018. 12. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.67 of 2012 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.32 of 2018. 13. The First Appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 24.03.2022, and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 14. Defendant No.2, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 15. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant No.2. 16. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 submits that both the Courts below have not adequately appreciated the entire evidence placed on record. He submits that the suit schedule property is a site with exact measurement and the courts have erred in decreeing the suit based on the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. Thus, the appointment of Court Commissioner was necessary for the adjudication of the suit and the First Appellate Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for the appointment of Court Commissioner. He also submits that, in case this Court concludes that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 liberty be reserved to defendant No.2 to file a comprehensive suit. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 17. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant No.2. 18. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 04.08.2004. The defendants also claim to be in possession of the suit schedule property. 19. As the defendants plead that the plaintiff has constructed a compound wall around the extent of their site from east-west and north-south, and she has put up compound wall to the extent to which she is in possession, from this averment by the defendants in their written statement, it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 20. The said averment itself is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff was in a lawful possession of the disputed property as of the date of filing the suit, and there is an interference by the defendants. 21. The defendants have admitted in their pleading regarding the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff on the disputed land and at the same time, the defendants have not clarified as to what is the exact measurement of the property located within the compound wall constructed by the plaintiff. In the said line, the defendants have taken a evasive defence to oppose the claim of the plaintiff. 22. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has also approached the police, but the police have advised the plaintiff to approach the civil court as the dispute between the parties to the suit is civil in nature. 23. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff has successfully - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 proved and demonstrated as to her lawful possession and enjoyment of the disputed property as of the date of the institution of the suit. 24. It is settled law that in a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to see the possession and interference as of the date of filing of the suit. If there is any serious dispute regarding the extent, the defendant would be at liberty to work out his remedy in the appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 25. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment nor any substantial questions of law that arise for my consideration in this appeal. I concur with the findings recorded by the courts below. 26. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pas the following order: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32861 RSA No. 1237 of 2022 ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. (iv) However, the liberty is reserved to defendant No.2 to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the appropriate proceedings, if so advised. (v) In view of the dismissal of appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2022 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2022 stands disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:KHV