- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 3752 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ONKARAPPA S/O NIRVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 2. SMT. LATHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 3. SRI MANU ALIAS MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 4. SRI SHIVU ALIAS SHIVARAJU S/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. THE PETITIONERS ARE THE RESIDENCE OF JAMMENAHALLI SIRIGERE POST, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 541. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.R. GOPALASWAMY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI BHARGAV G, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI R.S. SHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 2. SRI R.S. NARAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE RESIDENCE OF JAMMENAHALLI SIRIGERE POST BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 541. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE F THE ORDER DATED 31/08/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM CHITRADURGA IN MA NO. 04/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM CHITRADURGA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in MA No.4/2023 by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 3. Respondents herein have filed OS No.5/2023 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Chitradurga, seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule A and B properties. The contesting defendants have entered appearance and have filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. IA No.1 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiffs with a prayer to grant an order of temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession of suit schedule A and B properties. The contesting defendants had adopted their written statement as objections to IA No.1. The Trial Court vide the order dated 17.02.2023 has rejected IA No.1 filed in OS No.5/2023 and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs had approached the Appellate Court in MA No.4/2023 which was allowed on 31.08.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendants are before this Court. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that insofar as suit schedule A property is concerned, defendants have no objection for granting the relief prayed for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 in IA No.1. Insofar as suit schedule B property is concerned, defendants are the owners of the said property and the plaintiffs are in unauthorised occupation of the same. No injunction can be granted as against the real owners of the property. He submits that plaintiffs have handed over the B schedule property to the defendants herein much prior to filing of the suit. The Appellate Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in allowing MA No.4/2023. Accordingly, he prays that the order impugned insofar as it relates to B schedule property needs to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that defendants in their written statement have categorically admitted that plaintiffs have encroached suit schedule B property. It is found in the written statement that the survey of the property in dispute was conducted in the presence of all the parties and as per the Survey Report, plaintiffs were found in possession of B schedule property. At no point of time, plaintiffs have surrendered the B schedule property to the defendants as sought to be contented by them in the written statement. The Trial Court having appreciated that the defendants have not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 produced any material to show that plaintiffs have surrendered suit schedule B property in their favour, has passed the order impugned which is perfectly justified. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that plaintiffs have claimed absolute right over the suit schedule A property and the defendants have not opposed the said claim of the plaintiffs, insofar as it relates to suit schedule A property. However, the Trial Court had failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and had rejected IA No.1 in its entirety. Insofar as suit schedule B property bearing Sy.No.13/2 is concerned, it is averred in the plaint that plaintiffs are in possession of the said property and they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. A specific plea has been raised by the plaintiffs that they are not the owners of the suit schedule B property, but they are in possession and cultivation of the said property wherein they have grown areca nut trees aged about 25 years. 7. In the written statement which is filed by the defendants, it specifically stated that on 08.03.2021, defendant No.1 had given a petition for survey of the land bearing Sy.No.13/2, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 totally measuring 4 acres 22 guntas and in the survey report, it was found that the plaintiffs had encroached 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.13/2. In the written statement, it is further averred that after the survey was conducted, a panchayat was held in the village and in the panchayat, plaintiffs were advised to harvest areca nut crop for the year 2022 and thereafter, deliver the encroached area of 14 guntas to the defendants. According to defendants, subsequent to panchayat that was held on 12.12.2022, plaintiffs have handed over the aforesaid extent of 14 guntas of land in favour of Sy.No.13/2, which is the suit schedule B property to the defendants and thereafter they had filed the present suit. The Appellate Court having appreciated that the defendants who have admitted possession and cultivation of the suit schedule B property by the plaintiffs, had failed to produce any material before the Court that the said property was handed over to the defendants by the plaintiffs, has rightly granted an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 8. The material on record prima facie would go to show that suit schedule B property is an agricultural land in which yielding - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 areca nut plantation is found. In addition to the same, there is also a borewell existing in the suit schedule B property. The Appellate Court having referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramegowda dead by Lrs. vs. Varadappa Naidu dead by Lrs., - Appeal (Civil) No.7662/1997, in which it is observed that -"in the case of cultivable land if the crop had been grown by the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession", has granted order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 9. The plaintiffs have produced prima facie material before the Court to show that they are in possession of suit schedule property in which they have grown areca nut plants, whereas the defendants have failed to produce any material to show that the possession of the suit schedule B property which admittedly was with the plaintiffs has been handed over to them after 12.12.2022, the day on which panchayat was held, wherein the plaintiffs were advised by the panchayatedaars to hand over the possession of suit schedule B property to the defendants. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49389 WP No. 3752 of 2024 the Appellate Court was fully justified in allowing M.A.No.4/2023. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57