- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 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.1053 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SURESH S/O JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KANNIAH COMPOUND BM ROAD, ANDERSONPET KOLAR GOLD FIELDS KOLAR DISTRICT-563 113. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK N.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. UMASHANKAR S/O G.K. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6TH CROSS ROAD ROBERTSONPET KOLAR GOLD FIELD KOLAR DISTRICT-563 122. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.107/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, K.G.F, DISMISSING THE APPEAL THE CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.346/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF. Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 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 02.03.2023 passed in R.A.No.107/2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, K.G.F., confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.346/2012 by the learned I-Additional Civil Judge, and JMFC, K.G.F. 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: The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for permanent injunction contending that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 which he has acquired by a sale deed dated 01.03.2012. The defendant, without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property is trying to evict the plaintiff and his family members, from the suit schedule property based on the judgment passed in O.S.No.195/2007 and on the orders passed in E.P.No.20/2012. It is contended that the plaintiff is not a party in O.S.No.195/2007, and the judgment and decree passed in the said suit is not binding on the plaintiff. The schedule of this suit and that suit are different. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended one Govinda Swamy owned and possessed the house property bearing old municipal khatha No.1176/597, new khatha No.814/892 situated at Jayamma Compound Masjid Street, Andersonpet, KGF. After the death of Govinda - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 Swamy Naidu, his wife Jayamma @ Jayalakshmamma succeeded to the estate and she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant is the son of G. Kannaiah Naidu, who is the son of Govinda Swamy. During the life time of Jayamma @ Jayalakshmamma, she bequeathed a written statement schedule property, and other properties to her children under the registered Will dated 01.08.1987 and the defendants are the absolute owners by virtue of a registered Will dated 01.08.1987. It is contended that the defendant filed a suit against one Balaji and others for the relief of declaration of title and for possession in O.S.No.195/2007. The said suit was dismissed, and the defendant preferred an appeal in R.A.No.134/2010. The First Appellate Court, reversed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.195/2007, and consequently, decreed the suit in O.S.No.195/2007, and directed the plaintiff of that suit to evict the written statement schedule property and to deliver the vacant possession. The judgment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 passed in R.A.No.134/2010 was confirmed by the High Court in R.S.A.No.371/2011. The defendant filed an Execution Petition against JDR of that suit. In the said Execution Petition, delivery of possession was ordered. The JDR has filed the present suit through the plaintiff, to create obstruction in the Execution Petition. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed in the plaint? 4) What order or decree? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P36. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1, and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D25. The Trial Court, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 11.04.2022. 7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.346/2012, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.107/2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to allow I.A.No. 2) Whether the plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule property? 3) Whether the plaintiff has established the illegal interference by the defendant over the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property? 4) Whether the plaintiff has established his entitlement to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for in the present suit? 5) Whether the conclusion of the learned Trial Court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is proper? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 6) Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction? 7) What order? 8. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing both, the verbal and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 02.03.2023. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, filed this regular second appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.195/2007, and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.195/2007 is not binding on him. Hence, he submits that the said aspect was not adequately considered by Courts below, and have committed an error - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 in passing the impugned judgments. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. 12. It is not in dispute that the defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.195/2007. Prior to filing of the said suit, the defendant has also filed HRC proceedings in HRC Petition No.8/1997. The suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.195/2007 came to be dismissed. Therefore, the defendant preferred an appeal in R.A.No.134/2010. The said suit was decreed and the defendant, in that suit was directed to handover possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants (aggrieved persons) in O.S.No.195/2007 preferred a second appeal in R.S.A.No.371/2011 before this Court, and this Court dismissed the second appeal. After dismissal of second appeal, the defendant filed an Execution Petition against the defendant in that suit. During the pendency of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 Execution Petition, the defendant in that suit got filed the present suit through the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint as to how he came in possession of the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of the fact that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments passed by both, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and any substantial question of law that arises for my consideration in this appeal. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33211 RSA No. 1053 of 2023 ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree passed by Courts below are hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55