- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT BHAVANI W/O GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O BHADRA COLONY, MUTTINAKOPPA, N R PURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHAN K N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI PRAHALLADHA S/O APPU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O JANATHA COLONY MUTTINAKOPPA, N R PUTA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577134 …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2023 PASSED IN RA.NO.23/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, N.R. PURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,N.R. PURA. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 27.03.2023 passed in R.A. No.23 of 2021 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura and the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 passed in O.S. No. 29 of 2017 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 that the suit schedule property is a site property and the house construction was granted under the scheme of Rajeev Gandhi Grameena Vasathi Nigama and also Bavasthi Yojane 2016-2017. The said grant of construction of the house along with the schedule property was by means of a Grant Order dated 27.03.2017. 5. The khata was changed in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is constructing a residential house on the suit schedule property under the aforementioned Schemes. The Village Panchayat passed a Resolution asserting the right of the plaintiff regarding the suit schedule property and a house construction. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and inspite of it, he is causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and contended that the records produced by the plaintiff are not valid documents. It is contended that the defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property, and he has constructed a hut and residing in the suit schedule property and recently the hut fell down. The plaintiff by giving false information to the authority was able to get the site granted in her favour. But, later the khata in favour of the plaintiff was connected. Now, the suit schedule property is a vacant site. It is contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 7. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, farmed the relevant issues. 8. After recording the evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 06.09.2021 on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish the possession over the suit schedule property, and held that the suit for bare injunction without seeking a relief of declaration is not maintainable, in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) By legal representatives and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033. 9. The plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.23 of 2021. The First Appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 27.03.2023. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 10. The plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees filed this Regular Second Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and has produced the records to establish the said fact. The Trial Court has not properly considered the records produced by the plaintiff, and committed an error in dismissing the suit. The First Appellate Court also did not re- appreciate the entire evidence on record and committed an error in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 14. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant has seriously disputed the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, and further when the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property, the plaintiff should have filed a suit for declaration of title and a permanent injunction. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed a mere suit for perpetual injunction. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra) has laid down the guidelines in paragraph No.11 of its judgment, and the said guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, have been reproduced by the Trial Court in paragraph No.17 of the judgment and has rightly held that mere suit for a perpetual injunction without seeking a relief of declaration of title, is not maintainable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33265 RSA No. 1116 of 2023 16. Thus, both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments nor any substantial questions of law that arises for my consideration in this appeal. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: 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) The liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit, if so advised. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59 CT:KHV