- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 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. 2153 OF 2008 (INJ) BETWEEN: KARIYAMMA W/O NAGENDRAPPA MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST R/O BENAKANAHALLI, MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N K SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THIMMAPPARA BASAVARAJAPPA S/O ESWARAPPA 2. THIMMAJARA MARIRANGAPPA S/O RANGAPPA 3. THIMMAJJARA HALURAMESWARAPPA S/O RANGAPPA 4. GOWDARA RAMAPPA S/O RANGAPPA 5. DASAPPARA KARIRANGAPPA S/O DASAPPA Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 6. 6(A) KARIRANGAPPARA DEAD BY LRS VISWANATHA S/O KARIRANGAPPARA HUCHAPPA, 30 YEARS, R/O BENAKANAHALLI MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK - 577527 7. HUCHCHAPPARA THIMMAPPA S/O HUCHCHAPPA 8. 8(A) KOTTIGERERA THIMMAPPA DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES PANDURANGA S/O KOTTIGERA THIMMAPPA, 60 YEARS 8(B) RAMADAS S/O KOTTIGERA THIMMAPPA, 45 YEARS 8(C) THIPPESWAMY S/O KOTTIGERA THIMMAPPA, 30 YEARS ALL ARE R/O BENAKANAHALLI MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527 9. KOTTIGERERA KARAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA 10. KOTTIGERERA THIMMAPPA S/O MOODLAPPA 11. KONEMANE MARIRANGAPPA S/O. KARAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 12. KONEMANE GOVINDAPPA S/O. HALAPPA 13. HOLEYAJJARA RAMAPPA S/O. KARAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 13(A) SAROJAMMA W/O HOLEYAJJARA RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 13(B) R. RAMAPPA S/O HOLEYAJJARA RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 13(C) R. PANDUSANGAPPA S/O HOLEYAJJARA RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 13(D) THIPPESWAMY S/O HOLEYAJJARA RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MADIKERI HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 14. DODDALLAPPARA KARAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA 15. 15(A) DODDALLAPPA RANGAPPA DEAD BY LRS RANGAPPA S/O. DODDAPPARA RANGAPPA 50 YEARS 15(B) THIPPESWAMY S/O. DODDAPPARA THIMMAPPA, 40 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 15(C) PRAKASHA S/O. DODDAPPARA THIMMAPPA 35 YEARS ALL ARE MAJORS, R/O BENAKANAHALLI, MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. B L KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2, R3, R4, R5, R6(A), R7, R8(A-C), R9, R10, R11, R12, R13(A-D), R14, R15(A-C) RE SERVED] THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 16.7.08 PASSED IN R.A.NO 352/01 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 11.4.01 PASSED IN OS 252/99 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN), HOSADURGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 16.07.2008, passed in R.A.No.352/2001 by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Holalkere, and the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.252/1999 by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) Hosadurga. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land is the ancestral property belonging to her family, and the same was granted to her husband’s grandfather- Karappa, about 60-70 years ago and after his demise, her father-in-law-Rangappa succeeded to the suit schedule property. After the demise of Rangappa, her family members were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff’s husband is of unsound mind, and her children are minors. During the 2nd week of September 1999, the defendants having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the enjoyment - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 and peaceful possession of the same, and they are highly influential persons in the locality. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but the defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 15 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that it is an ancestral property. During the lifetime of Doddakarappa, his four children were jointly enjoying it as the thrashing yard, backyard, and the khata was changed in the name of Huchappa, being the elder son of Kari Rangappa. There are separate backyards for the plaintiff and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 defendants. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in exclusive possession of suit property? 2) Is the alleged interference true? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for? 4) What order or decree? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 and P9. In rebuttal, the defendants examined 6 witnesses as DWs.1 to 6, and marked 11 documents as Exs.D1 to D11. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos . 1 to 3 in the negative, and issue No.4 as per - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.04.2001. 7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.252/1999, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.352/2001 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Holalkere. 8. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration. i. Whether the lower Court is justified in dismissing the suit of plaintiff? ii. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Court is required to be interfered with in this appeal? 9. The first Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, and point No.2 in the negative, consequently, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.252/1999 by the trial court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, has filed this regular second appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that earlier the property was owned and possessed by Karappa (grand father of plaintiff’s husband), and after his demise, the property devolved upon Rangappa, i.e., father-in-law of the plaintiff, and Rangappa died, leaving behind the husband of the plaintiff, Nagendrappa i.e., husband who is of unsound mind, and is alive. He submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on behalf of Nagendrappa. Hence, the said aspect was not adequately considered by the courts below, and he also submits that the revenue records disclose that Nagendrappa is in possession of the suit schedule property, and the trial Court committed an error - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 in not drawing the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Section 133 of the Act’) Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. None appears for the respondent. 14. This court on 17.03.2016, admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the trial Court is correct in holding that Ex.P1 does not carry any right over the property and further the trial Court has erred in not considering the Ex.P1 and evidence of PW.1 to the effect that land in question for which injunction is sought is the ancestral property? 2. Whether the trial Court committed an error in not presuming entries made in RTC under Section 133 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act? 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 REG.SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.1: 16. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by Karappa. i.e., the grandfather of plaintiff’s husband, He died leaving behind his son Rangappa i.e., the plaintiff’s father-in-law. After the demise of Karappa, Rangappa succeeded to the suit schedule property. Rangappa died, leaving behind his son Nagendrappa, i.e., husband of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the property is standing in the name of Rangappa. After the demise of Rangappa, Nagendrappa has not submitted any application to transfer the said land in his name. Admittedly, the records are standing in the name of Rangappa i.e., Exs.P1 to 4 are the RTC extracts of land bearing Sy.No.19, standing in the name of Rangappa, Exs.P5 to 8 are the tax paid receipts in the name of Rangappa regarding Sy.No.19, and Ex.P9 is the judgment copy of O.S.No.43/1981. 17. During the course of cross-examination, it is suggested that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 schedule property. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1. In rebuttal, the defendants have examined 6 witnesses as DWs.1 to 6, and produced the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D11. 18. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, though the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has not produced a single piece of paper to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Since, Rangappa is no more, Nagendrappa may succeed to the suit schedule property. However, Nagendrappa has not filed a suit. It is contended that Nagendrappa is of unsound mind. If Nagendrappa is not of unsound mind, the suit could have been filed by Nagendrappa through a guardian as per the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC. Admittedly, Nagendrappa has not filed a suit through a guardian as per Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC. As observed above, the plaintiff has not produced any record to show that she is in possession of the suit schedule property, and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 Ex.P1 is standing in the name of Rangappa, and it does not carry any right over the property by the plaintiff herein. The trial Court has not committed any error in not considering Ex.P1. The plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. It is settled law that in a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as of the date of filing the suit, and the interference. 19. Admittedly, Ex.P1 stands in the name of Rangappa and not in the name of the plaintiff. The trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. The first Appellate Court has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. I concur with the findings recorded by both the courts below in the impugned judgments. In view of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law No.1 in the affirmative. REG. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.2: 20. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and to prove the same produced documents Exs.P1 to P4, which are the RTC extracts of the suit land. From the perusal of Exs.P1 to P4, it is clear that, the suit schedule property stands in the name of Rangappa, and not in the name of the plaintiff. Though there is a presumption regarding the entries in the record of rights as per Section 133 of the Act, admittedly, the land in question, i.e., the suit land, is not standing in the name of the plaintiff. Hence, the question of drawing a presumption in favour of the plaintiff under Section 133 of the Act would not arise. The trial Court was justified in not drawing a presumption under Section 133 of the Act regarding the RTC extracts. The said presumption is a rebuttal. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33132 RSA No. 2153 of 2008 21. The plaintiff, by producing Exs.P1 to P4, herself rebutted the presumption, as the entries stood in the name of Rangappa and not in the name of the plaintiff. The trial Court was justified in not drawing a presumption under Section 133 of the Act in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law No.2 in the negative. 22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9