- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100511/2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. DEVENDRAPPA S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA AIRANI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., 2. JAGADEESH S/O. DEVENDRAPPA AIRANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., 3. MALLIKARJUN S/O. DEVENDRAPPA AIRANI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRI/ADVOCATE, ALL ARE R/O: AREMALLAPURA VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLESHAPPA S/O. SHIVAJAPPA SURVE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., 2. PARASHURAM S/O. SHIVAJAPPA SURVE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., BOTH ARE R/O: AREMALLAPURA VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RANEBENNUR IN R.A.NO.01/2022 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDITIONAL JMFC., RANEBENNUR IN O.S.NO.170/2016, BY ALLOWING THIS RSA WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S. No.170/2016, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and I-Addl. CJM, Ranebennur (for short “the trial Court”), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of permanent injunction was decreed, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 29.04.2025, passed in R.A. No.1/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur (for short “the First Appellate Court”). 2. The above suit in O.S. No.170/2016 was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction, contending that the suit property measuring 9 guntas forming part of the land in R.S. No.1/A1/1A/3 & B situated at Aremallapura Village, was purchased by the plaintiff in terms of a deed of sale executed in the year 2015. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 contended that the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since the date of purchase. However, the defendants without having any right, title, or interest in the suit property, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Ranebennur Police Station on 24.12.2015. Despite this, when the plaintiffs were in the process of using the suit property for storing haystacks, the defendants again obstructed their possession, thereby compelling the plaintiffs to file the suit seeking a permanent injunction. 3. The defendants appeared in the suit. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendants denied the description of the suit schedule property and also denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the said property. 4. It is contended that the land in R.S. No.1 of Aremallapura Village originally belonged to one Narashimha Bhat Inamdar. Upon his demises, his sons, namely - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 Seetaram Moodalagiri and Suryanarayana, became the rightful owners of the suit property. The grandfather of the defendants, Malakappa Airani, had been using the suit property as a threshing floor and for storing hay, manure and agricultural implements since the year 1953, and the defendants have been maintaining possession of the same ever since. 5. The defendants further contended that the purported sale of the property in favour of the plaintiffs is fictitious, lacking actual possession, and that the plaintiffs have not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit property. It was claimed that the defendants are in possession of 6 guntas of land, marked as “ABCD” in the sketch. In the year 1944, Malakappa purchased 7 guntas of land in the same survey number, identified as “CDEF” in the sketch. Subsequently, in the year 1949, he acquired an additional extent of 4 guntas in the same survey number, marked as “EFGH” in the sketch. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 6. These three portions together represented as “ABGH” in the hand sketch. The suit property, as claimed, is being used and enjoyed by the defendants’ family along with the other properties. 7. It is further contended that though the defendants do not hold title to the suit property, they are in possession of the same adversely to the interest of the true owner. Such possession, they contend that is open, peaceful and uninterrupted, with the knowledge of all the parties, including the true owner. Hence, the defendants’ claim that their possession is open, notorious exclusive and continuous. Accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed the following issues and additional issues for its consideration: «ªÁzÀA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ 1. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï D¹ÛUÀ¼À°è zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀÆqÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ ±ÁAwAiÀÄÄvÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°è EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 2. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀPÉÌ zÁªÁ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ CrØ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ ? 3. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉà ? 4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ ? ºÉZÀÄѪÀj «ªÁzÁA±À 1. F zÁªÉAiÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 3 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® ¸Àé¢üãÀvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄà ? 9. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and produced 5 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2, and produced 16 documents, marked as Exs.D1 to D16. 10. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and the additional issue in the negative. Consequently decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal in R.A. No.1/2022 before the First Appellate Court. 12. The First Appellate Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the grounds urged in the appeal, framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they were in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of institution of the suit. 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed? 4. Whether interference of this court is necessary? 5. What order or decree? 13. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and point No.4 in the negative. Consequently, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 14. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate court, the defendants have preferred this regular second appeal before this Court. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, submitted that the grandfather of the defendants had purchased 7 guntas of land in R.S. No.1 in the year 1930 and an additional extent of 4 guntas of land in the year 1944. Thus, the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of 11 guntas of land by virtue of the deeds of sale. 16. He further submitted that the original owner, Narashimha Bhat Inamdar, had orally permitted the defendants to occupy the suit property in the year 1953, and ever since, the defendants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 17. Learned counsel also submitted that one Fakkirayya Negaluru had claimed to have purchased the suit property from Narashimha Bhat Inamdar and had filed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 a suit in O.S. No.225/2001 against the defendants and one Sumangala Bangali. During the pendency of the said suit, Fakkirayya Negaluru sold the property to Sumangala Bangali, who in turn sold it to the plaintiffs in the year 2015. These successive transactions, according to the appellants, establish the continuous and peaceful possession of the defendants over the suit property, which aspect that has not been considered properly by either the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. 18. He further contended that, since the defendants had specifically denied the title and possession of the suit property of the plaintiffs, the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. The plaintiffs, in such circumstances ought to have filed the suit for declaration and possession. Therefore, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit as sought for, thereby giving rise to the substantial question of law. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed. 19. Heard. Perused the records. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 20. It is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to one Narashimha Bhat Inamdar, who admittedly sold the suit property to Fakkirayya Negaluru. Subsequently, the said Fakkirayya Negaluru sold the suit property to Sumangala Bangali on 26.09.2001, and thereafter, Sumangala Bangali sold it to the plaintiffs on 22.09.2015. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court, taking into consideration these registered deeds of sale and their contents, found that the suit property was validly conveyed through successive transactions, namely from Narashimha Bhat Inamdar to Fakirayya Negaluru, then to Sumangala Bangali and ultimately to the plaintiffs. 21. The sale deeds also contain recitals indicating the possession having been delivered to each of the purchasers at the time of sale under the aforesaid transaction. That apart, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court referred to the revenue records, particularly Ex.P1, which reflects the name of the plaintiffs in column - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 No.9, thereby their claim of possession and ownership having established. 22. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.09.2001, evidencing the sale of the suit property by Fakkirayya Negaluru to Smt. Sumangala Bangali. Ex.P2 is the sale deed dated 22.09.2015, under which Sumangala Bangali sold the suit property to the plaintiffs. The contents of both documents clearly indicate that the possession was delivered to the purchasers. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the mutation register, and Ex.P1 is the record of rights, both reflecting the name of plaintiffs as the owner of the suit property. 23. Accordingly, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly considered the contents of Exs.P1 to P5 and have come to the conclusion that the suit property, originally owned by Narashimha Bhat Inamdar was conveyed to the plaintiffs, who are now the owners and possessors of the suit property. That apart, both Sumangala Bangali and Fakkirayya Negaluru were - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 examined as PW2 and PW3, respectively, who entered the witness box confirming the respective sale transaction in terms of the deeds of sale produced by the plaintiffs. Thus, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have found that the plaintiffs have established their right, title and possession over the suit property. 24. On the other hand, the defendants claim to be in possession of the suit property based on an oral permission granted by Narashimha Bhat Inamdar. However, no documents of any nature whatsoever have been produced to support this claim. Apart from relying on the suit in O.S. No.225/2001, filed by Fakkirayya Negaluru against the Sumangala Bangali and the defendants for permanent injunction which eventually was dismissed for non- prosecution, no supporting evidence has been produced. 25. The defendants have also made a feeble attempt to claim that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. Though the trial Court framed an additional issue on this aspect, learned counsel for the appellants - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 vehemently submits that no opportunity was provided for the defendants lead evidence on the said issue. 26. Even assuming that this contention is to be considered, it is not in dispute that Fakkirayya Negaluru sold the suit property to Sumangala Bangali on 05.09.2001, and she, in turn sold it to the plaintiffs on 22.09.2015. The defendants claim to have come into possession of the suit property in the year 1953 through oral permission granted by Narashimha Bhat Inamdar. In the light of these aforesaid facts, and in the absence of any specific pleading by the defendants regarding the date, time, or month from which their possession became hostile to the true owner, their plea of adverse possession holds no merit. Even if the opportunity as now sought for by the learned counsel for the appellants were to be granted, it would serve no purpose as there is no foundational pleading on record to support such a claim. 27. Narashimha Bhat Inamdar was the true owner, he sold the suit property to Fakkirayya Negaluru, who in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8493 RSA No. 100511 of 2025 turn sold it to Sumangala Bangali, from whom the plainfiffs have purchased under the deed of sale as note above. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession fails to meet statutory requirement. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly rejected the claim of the defendants being in possession and perfecting their title by way of adverse possession. 28. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees passed by both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1