- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASH G S/O GANESH K, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SMT. BANU, W/O PRAKASH G AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.5, 3RD MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NEW BABMOO BAZAR, MYSURU - 570 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.11.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.158/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.03.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.472/2021 ON THE FILE OF 10TH CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.K.M.Sanath Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. 3. Appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 472/2021 dismissing the suit confirmed in R.A.No.158/2022 in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit property): SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the House bearing No.5 situated at Medar Block, Bamboo Bazar, Mysuru City measuring East West 15 feet, North - South : 10 feet bounded by East : Road West : Land belongs to Railway - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 North : Ashraya Houses South : Houses 4. The facts in the nutshell which are almost necessary for disposal of the present suit are as under: 4.1 A suit for bare injunction in respect of the suit property came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that for about 40 years plaintiffs are residing in the suit property and they are having a son of 12 years and a daughter of 10 years. 4.2 Despite constructing the house and residing in the suit property, defendant without there being any notice whatsoever, on 21.04.2021, approached the plaintiffs and told that they were going to demolish the suit property and plaintiffs would be accommodated somewhere else. 4.3 The said action of the defendant was resisted, but highhandedly the defendant tried to interfere with the suit property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 4.4 Therefore, in order to protect the possession of suit property, suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiffs. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance but failed to file a written statement. Thereafter, learned Trial Court permitted the plaintiffs to lead evidence. 6. Plaintiff No.1 entered witness box and in view of examination-in-chief, he has filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief re-iterating the plaint averments in verbatim and on his behalf 10 documents were placed on record, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-10 comprising of receipt for having obtained the electricity connection with respect of the suit property, electricity bill, Voters ID, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card, Birth Certificate of the daughter, photographs, and Compact Disc. 7. Plaintiff No.2 was also examined by PW2. Defendant not only failed to place the written statement - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 on record, but also did not choose to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs. 8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge raised necessary points for consideration. On appreciation of the material on record, noted that the plaintiffs not only failed to prove the lawful possession of the suit property and documents relied on by the plaintiffs, though not contradicted by the defendant, did not establish that they are in the lawful possession of the suit property in the absence of any title to the suit property. 9. So also the learned Trial Judge noted that to prove the alleged interference on 21.04.2021, there is no material on the record. Therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.158/2022. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after issuing the notice, secured the records of the parties and heard the arguments of the parties in detail. 12. On re-appreciation of the material on record, three points were raised by the First Appellate Court including the question of entertaining the additional evidence on the part of the plaintiffs filed along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noted that a final notice dated 16.07.2021 was filed as additional document along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. 13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noted that very issuance of preliminary notice or final notice were placed on the record before the Trial Court. Further, final notice is dated 16.07.2021, whereas the suit came to be disposed of on 09.03.2022 and that nothing prevented the plaintiff's right to place the alleged final notice said to have been issued by the defendant on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 16.07.2021 and noted that plaintiffs suppressed the material fact before the Trial Court by not placing the material evidence on record to advance his case and held that the conduct of the plaintiffs is incorrect. 14. 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court also took into consideration the probative value of photograph marked at Exhibit P-8, wherein the alleged house in occupation of the plaintiff is seem to have been already demolished. No contra evidence is placed on record. 15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that no title document is placed on record by the plaintiff and his property is that of the corporation property, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the absence of prayer for declaration, thus does not require any interference by this Court that too having regard to the scope under Section 100 of CPC. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38496 RSA No. 303 of 2024 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, I pass the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MDS; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58