- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: DASAPPA S/O BADAGI KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O HOSAYALANADU VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK - 572143. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O HOSAYALANADU VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK - 572143. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.18/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO. 171/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, HIRIYUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Aravind Reddy H., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment passed in RA No.18/2015 whereby the judgment an decree of injunction passed in favour of the appellant in O.S.No.171/2012 came to be reversed. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court. 4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 4.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.171/2012 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property): - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 Hut and basement in Site No. 46, Lane No. 169 and old katha No. 148 situated at Hosayalanadu Village, Hiriyur Taluk mensuring 85 X50 Feet and bounded as follows: East: Panchayath Road West: Panchayath Road North: Site belong to A.Κ. Hanumantharaya presently Thimmanna South: Site belongs to H. Ramalingaiah. 4.2. Suit on due contest, came to be decreed. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.18/2015. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, allowed the appeal filed by defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court, in this appeal on following grounds and raising substantial questions of law: GROUNDS  The judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is highly illegal, perverse, besides being erroneous, as such same is liable to be set aside.  It is submitted that the appellate court not at all considered the well-reasoned findings recorded by the trial court, as such same is bad in law.  It is submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, the plaintiff has specifically contended in the plaint that suit property was originally belongs to one K. Ningappa, the said person was executed the agreement to sell in favor of plaintiff dated:16.06.1990 and delivered the vacant possession of the entire suit property, the Gram Panchayat after recording the statement of said K. Ningappa changed the katha in the name plaintiff, it is further submitted that as per the documents produced by the plaintiff katha No.148 standing in the name of plaintiff in the panchayat records from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 year 1997-98 till 2006-2007, as per Ex.P-6 demand register extract property measuring about 85X50 feet is standing in the name of plaintiff, the trial court considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly decreed the suit, but the appellate court without reversing the well- reasoned findings recorded by the trial court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, as such same is bad in law.  It is submitted that it is the specific case of the defendant in her written statement that she purchased the suit property from K. Ningappa in the year 1990 measuring 42.5X50 feet, the defendant in order to prove she purchased the suit property from said K. Ningappa nothing has been produced before the trial court, therefore the trial court considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff decreed the suit, but the appellate court without considering said facts allowed the appeal, as such the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is bad in law and same is liable to be set aside.  It is submitted that the trial court has rightly held that, there is no basis to enter the name of 1st Defendant to the half extent of the suit property in panchayat records, it is submitted that the name of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 plaintiff is reflects in the panchayat records from 1997-98 to 2006-2007, the name of defendant entered in the panchayat records first time in the year 2006, from the year 1990 the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, therefore it goes to show that the plaintiff prima-facie proved he is in possession of suit property from the year 1990 and resolution passed by the gram panchayat without any basis, but the appellate court not at all considered the said aspects, as such judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court is bad in law.  It is submitted that the appellate court has mainly relied upon the stray admission and allowed the appeal, the plaintiff throughout the proceedings has contended that he is in possession of the suit property and this fact is evidenced by the gram panchayat records, the defendant has alleged that she purchased the suit property from her vendor in the year 1990, but she not produced any single document to prove said facts, the panchayat records are standing in the name of plaintiff from the year 1996-1997, but the panchayat authorities at first time entered the name of defendant only in the year 2006-2007, if the defendant purchased the suit property in the year 1990 itself, why her name is not entered in panchayat records till 2006-2007, but the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 appellate court only on the basis of some stray admission allowed the appeal, as such same is bad in law.  It is submitted that the defendant before the 1 appellate court was filed the application for additional evidence, the defendant in her affidavit filed in support of said application not at all stated why she not produced this evidence before the trial court, but the appellant without there being any sufficient reasons allowed the said application, as such same is bad in law.  It is submitted that the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution as per Ex.D-1 on 08.02.2007, the case of defendant as per written statement is that she purchased the portion of suit property in the year 1990, the defendant has produced and marked the documents from Ex.D-5 to 19 in her additional evidence before the 1st appellate court, as per these documents it goes to show that she was granted house unde Ashraya Scheme by the gram panchayath before the resolution passed by the gram panchayat, this fact is not pleaded by the defendant in her written statement, the appellate court without there being any contention in the written statement allowed the application and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 considered the additional evidence of the defendant, as such same is bad in law.  It is submitted that as per Ex.D-5 there is no exact date when the foundation was constructed by the defendant, as per Ex.D-7 the property of the plaintiff is situated towards western side, as per Ex.D-9 the defendant declared that she is not having any property in the village, as per Ex.D-10 the state government has grated house to defendant adjacent to the property of the plaintiff, from these documents it goes to show that the defendant was not purchased the portion of suit property as alleged in her written statement, but house property was granted by the government adjacent to the suit property, the defendant has not pleaded this fact before the trial court in her written statement, but the 1st appellate court without there being any pleadings accepted the case of defendant, as such judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is bad in law.  It is submitted that the appellate court has grossly erred in recording the finding that as per Ex.D-5 the defendant put up basement in her site, the date of this Ex.D-5 is 24.05.2007, but at that time there is no katha in the name of defendant, the katha was effected in the name of defendant as per Ex.D-1 only - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 on 08.02.2007, it is further submitted that the defendant not at all examined the author of those documents and all these documents are created for the purpose of this case, as such reliance placed by the appellate court on these documents is bad in law.  It is submitted that from the documents produced by the defendant before the appellate court itself is goes to show that the property of the plaintiff is situated towards the western side of the alleged defendant property, the defendant by producing these documents admitted the existence of suit property and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, from the documents produced by the defendant the actual extent of the property in her possession is not mentioned, in the absence of material evidence to prove what is the exact measurement in which the defendant alleged to be in possession considering the case of defendant is bad in law. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether the appellate court is right in law in dismissing the suit of plaintiff, though the plaintiff proved he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 2. Whether the appellate court is right in law in allowing the appeal mainly relaying on some stray admission without there being sufficient pleading by the defendant? 3. Whether the appellate court is right in law in believing the case of defendant without any pleading in her written statement? 4. Whether the appellate court is right in law in allowing the application filed for additional evidence, though the defendant not fulfilled the conditions in this regard? 5. Whether the appellate court is right in law in considering the Ex.D-5 to 19, though the defendant failed to examine the author of those documents? 6. Whether the appellate court is right in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, though the defendant not proved her possession over the portion of suit property? 7. Whether the appellate court is right in law in reversing the findings of the trial court, though the defendant not proved her defense by producing cogent oral and documentary evidence? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 8. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the First Appellate Court grossly misread itself into the material evidence on record and wrongly dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal. 9. He would further contend that additional evidence placed on record by defendant No.1 is an afterthought and only with an intention to suit to the convenience of the defence taken by him. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court mechanically allowed the additional evidence and thereafter wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. 11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that plaintiff is an agreement holder from K.Ningappa in respect of the suit property. In the suit, a document is placed on record by the plaintiff vide Ex.P.8 at an undisputed point of time which is a petition filed by the plaintiff with Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Hiriyur in dispute No.-/2007. In the said petition itself, it has been contended that the suit property was granted by the Government in favour of one K.Ningappa who is the vendor of the plaintiff. 13. When there was a dispute with regard to transfer of revenue entries, he had approached the Panchayath Officer with the aforesaid petition under Section 69(3) of the Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. In the said petition, schedule is mentioned as under: Hut and vacant site bearing Site No. 6 Lane No: 169 and Old Khata No. 148 situated at Hosayalanadu village, Hiriyur taluk measuring 85 × 50 and bounded as follows: East by: Panchayath Road - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 West by: Panchayath Road North by: Site belongs to A.K. Hanumantharaya presently Thimmanna South by: Site belongs to H. Ramalingaiah 14. Likewise, in Exs.P.9 to 13 which are the documents filed by the plaintiff it has been mentioned in the suit property as site No.6. Whereas in the plaint schedule, suit site is mentioned as site No.46. 15. Again in Ex.P.20, which is the petition given by the plaintiff to Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, CEO, Zilla Panchayat, Chitradurga and to the Station House Officer, Hiriyur, the site number is mentioned as site No.6. 16. Further, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has specifically noted that in Ex.P.20, it has been mentioned by the very same plaintiff that Lakshmidevi wife of Thippeswamy has started putting up the foundation in site No.6. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34405 RSA No. 1119 of 2021 17. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he admits that Panchayath Officials have transferred the katha in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 2007 and at the time of filing the suit, defendant No.1 was already in possession of the suit property. 18. In the teeth of such admissions, First Appellate Court holding that plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the suit property which is a prime requirement for granting an order of injunction and allowing the appeal of the defendant and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is just and proper which calls for no interference by this Court, in this appeal. 19. Hence, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40