- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100463 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. KAREGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA RAMALINGANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED. OTHERS MEMBERS ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. NINGAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MUDDI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 3. HALAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MUDDI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 4. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MUDDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 5. CHANNABASAPPA S/O .BASAVARAJ SHIVALINGAPPANAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 6. CHANDRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HURAKADLI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 7. JAYANNA S/O. SANNABASAPPA SHIVALINGAPPANAVAR, SINCE DECEASED OTHERS MEMBERS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 8. HUCHCHAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA MUDDI, SINCE DECEASED OTHERS MEMBERS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 9. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. BULLAPPA GUTTAL, SINCE DECEASED OTHERS MEMBERS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 10. VIRUPAKSHAPPA HALLALLI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: ARICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 11. MALLAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA DESHAGATTI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: ARICULTURE, R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 12. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. KURUVATTAPPA GUTTAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 13. MAHESHAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA KAREGOUDAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. &APPELLANTS (BY MISS. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE; V/O DATED: 06.11.2024 APPEAL AGAINST A9 IS ABATED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 AND: 1. NANDEPPA M/O. MARIYAVVA YANKANNANAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1A. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. NANDEPPA YANKANNANAVAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 1B. YANKAMMA W/O. MARUTEPPA ANNER, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KODA, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 1C. RENUKA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA HALAGUNDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HOLE ANVERI, TQ: HIREKERUR DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 1D. HANUMAKKA W/O. BANNEPPA BYALAHUNSHI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HOLAL, TQ: HOOVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI - 583 222. 1E. GUTTAVVA W/O. SATISH HONNATTI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KONANTELI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 1F. PARUSHARAM S/O. NANDEPPA YANKANNANAVAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. 1G. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. NANDEPPA YANKANNANAVAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O: ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR DIST: HAVERI 3 581 115, NOW RESIDING AT KEB QUATERS NO.16, UNAKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI - 581 115. 1h. JYOTI D/O. NANDEPPA YANKANNANAVAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A, B, E, F, G & H); R1(C), R1(D) ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING ALLOW THIS REGAL SECOND APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RANEBENNUR, IN R.A.NO.58/2010 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.349/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL J.M.F.C., RANEBENNUR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 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 by the defendants in OS No.349/2007 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2014 passed in RA No.58/2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur (for short, 8First Appellate Court9), by which the First Appellate Court allowed the said appeal filed by the plaintiff setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2010 passed in OS No.349/2007 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Ranebennur (for short, 8Trial Court9) and consequently, restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 2. The above suit is filed seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit property namely, land bearing Sy.No.56/2K measuring 0.05 guntas bounded on the East by: open space belonging to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 school property, West by: property belonging to Ramachandrappa Yenkannavar, North by: school building and South by: Government road, contending inter alia that the suit property has been in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner thereof with his name being reflected in the revenue records. That the defendants without having any right, title and interest over the suit property with ulterior intentions of knocking off the same were illegally interfering with his possession constraining him to file the above suit. 3. Though all the defendants appeared, only defendant No.13 filed written statement which was adopted by other defendants wherein, the claim of the plaintiff being the owner and in possession of suit property has been denied. It is contended that the suit property absolutely belonged to the defendants and it is in their possession. As such, the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiff had earlier filed two suits in OS No.213/1994 and OS No.115/2006, which were dismissed on 11.08.1998 and there was no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 leave sought to file the present suit on the same cause of action as such the present suit is not maintainable. It is further contended that, on 06.02.2007 plaintiff had executed a deed of sale in favour of one Ramachandrappa Yenkannanavar agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.40,000/-. That the plaintiff has similarly entered into several agreements in favour of several persons agreeing to sell the suit property. In addition, he also agreed to convey 2 guntas of land to be utilised by the school for the purpose of hostel by way of gift. That on 19.09.1985 plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale and gift conveyed 2 guntas of land for the purpose of hostel and 6 guntas of land in favour of the school, and possession of the said land has been delivered. That the plaintiff agreed and undertaken to execute necessary deeds of convenience in favour of the defendants. 3.1. That, on and from 19.09.1985 till the date of the suit, the suit property has been in possession of School Development Committee. Defendants thus have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further contended that, the property has been assigned with VPC Nos.579/C1 and 579/2 in the name of Chairman of High School Development Committee, Itagi. A compound wall has been constructed enclosing the suit property. In addition, defendants have also claimed that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession of the suit property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration; 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged illegal interference and obstructions of the defendants with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 4. What order or decree? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 5. Three witnesses have been examined by the plaintiff and exhibited 6 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P6. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of defendants and exhibited 18 documents marked as Ex.D1 to D18. 6. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the suit primarily based on the entries found in Ex.P3 3 record of rights and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 3 the Khata extracts issued by the Gram Panchayat, Itagi, wherein, though the name of the plaintiff has been shown in the ownership column, the names of the defendants have been shown to be in possession column. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred the regular appeal in RA No.58/2010. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 2. Whether he further proves the alleged interference to his possession by the defendants? 3. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective? 4. If so, whether the impugned judgment and decree under appeal calls for interference by this court? 5. What order or decree? 8. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and consequently, allowed the appeal setting aside the judgement and decree dated 01.10.2010 passed by the Trial Court and consequently, restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 9. Miss. Vinaya Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri. Nagangouda R. Kuppelur, for the appellants taking this Court through the reasoning assigned by the First Appellate Court submits that the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 particularly in the light of admitted facts of plaintiff executing deed of gift and delivering the possession of the suit property in favour of defendants in the year 1985 as evidenced by Ex.D4 and Ex.D5. She further submits that the defendants have enclosed the area mentioned in the suit property by constructing a compound wall. That on earlier occasion the plaintiff had made attempts to obtain an order of injunction by filing suit in OS No.213/1994 which was dismissed. As such, the First Appellate Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiff continued to be the owner of the suit property. 10. She further submits that since specific denial with regard to the title and possession of the plaintiff is made, bare suit for injunction was not maintainable. Thus, she submits that the judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court gives rise to substantial question of law requiring consideration by this Court. 11. Sri. D. M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs / respondents herein at the outset submits that the property subject matter of the suit is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 completely distinct and different from the one being claimed by the defendants purportedly in terms of Ex.D5. He further submits that at any rate since, Ex.D5 is not a document brought into existence in the manner known to law, defendants cannot claim for any benefits or interest arising thereof either. 12. He further submits that the earlier suits which were filed by the plaintiff in OS No.213/1994 and in OS No.115/2006 were withdrawn as the extent of land shown was 21 guntas in Sy.No.56/2K whereas, the extent of land being subject matter of the present suit is only 5 guntas. He further submits that though the defendants claim right, title and interest over the suit property in terms of Ex.D5, on the other hand they claim to have perfected title by way of adverse possession. This contradictory stand taken by the defendants would benefit the case of the plaintiff. That mere entries in the record of rights maintained by the Village Panchayat cannot take away the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of suit property. He further submits that the First Appellate Court has taken - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 note of these material aspects of the matter and has come to the proper and just conclusion no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Heard and perused the records. 14. The suit is one for bare injunction based on title and possession claimed by the plaintiff. The description of the suit schedule property is as under: zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï zÁªÁzÁ¹ÛAiÀÄÄ gÁtÂèɣÀÆßgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀ, ElV UÁæªÀÄzÀ ºÀ¢ÝUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÖ j ¸À £ÀA:56-2PÀ, PÉëÃvÀæ:0 JPÀgÉ, 05 UÀÄAmÉ EzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ ZÀPÀ̧A¢ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ : ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨É樀 eÁUÉ. ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ¥Àà AiÀÄAPÀtÚ£ÀªÀgÀ EªÀgÀ D¹Û GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ©°ØAUï zÀQëtPÉÌ : ¸ÀgÀPÁj gÀ¸ÉÛ F ZÀPÀÄÌA¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÉåzÀ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÁªÀzÀ D¹Û EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 15. Defendants on the other hand claimed that the plaintiff himself had conveyed extent of 2 guntas of land forming part of Sy.No.56/2K in terms of Ex.D5. Ex.D5 reads as under: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 <vÁ: 19.9.1985 ²æà ºÀjºÀgÀUËqÀÄæ §¸À£ÀUËqÀÄæ PÀgÉÃUËqÀÄæ ZÉÃgÀªÉÄãïgÀÄ ºÁAiÀĸÀÆÌ®PÀ«ÄÃn, ElV, vÁ®ÆPÀ: gÁt¨ɣÀÆßgÀÄ, EªÀjUÉ. eÁUÁRjâ ¥ÁªÀw ¨Éùä:- £ÀAzÉ¥Àà vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄgÉAiÀĪÀé AiÀÄAPÀtÚ£ÀªÀgÀ ¸Á: ElV vÁ®ÆPÀÄ: gÁt¨ɣÀÆßgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ §gɹPÉÆlÖ eÁUÁ Rjâ ¥ÁªÀw K£ÉAzÀgÉ. zsÁgÀªÁqÀ f¯Áè gÁt¨ɣÀÆßgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀ ElV UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ºÉ¸À¯Éð SÁvÉ ªÀ ªÀiÁ°Ì ªÀ»ªÁlAiÀÄļÀî d«ÄãÀ jÃ.¸À.£ÀA.56/2 JPÀgÉ 0-21 UÀÄ 1-02 DuÉ. £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ°è ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁUÀzÀ eÁUÁ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ eÁUÁzÀ JzÀÄjUÉ CzÀgÀ ¤¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV EgÀĪÀ eÁUÁ gÀ¹ÛªÀgÉUÉ (zÀQët) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F eÁUÁzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ EgÀĪÀ §ArÃzÁj eÁUÁ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÉÃj EzÀgÀ MlÄÖ C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀÆ-¥À ¥sÀÆmï 138 GvÀÛgÀ zÀQët ¥sÀÆmï ¥ÀÆ 45 ¥À 49 EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F eÁUÁ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁAiÀĸÀÆÌ°UÉ ¥ÀÄPÀÌmÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆlÖ F ¢£ÀªÉà ¸ÀzÀgÀ eÁUÁ ¤ªÀÄä vÁ¨Á ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ¸ÀzÀgÀ §ArzÁj¬ÄAzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ¢QÌUÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ jÃ.¸À.£ÀA. ¥ÉÊQ G¼ÀzÀ eÁUÁzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄUÀÄAmÉ 0-2. eÁUÁ ¥Àæw-UÀÄAoÉUÉ £Á®ÄÌ£ÀÆgÁE¥ÀàvÉÊzÀÄ – gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ Rjâ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ºÉÆA¢¹PÉÆlÄÖ F ¨Á§vÀÄ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ZÀÄPÁÛ gÀPÀÄA vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ eÁUÁ ¤ªÀÄä vÁ¨ÁPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É F eÁUÁzÀ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ ¥ÀÆ.PÉÌ §ArÃzÁj ¥À.PÉÌ F j.¸À.£ÀA. ¥ÉÊQ G½zÀ eÁUÁ G.PÉÌ ©ÃgÀ¥Àà PÀÄgÀĨï EªÀgÀ ¥Áèl eÁUÁ zÀ.PÉÌ ºÀjºÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄä¸ÀV gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥ÀÆ. PÉÌ ¸ÀzÀgÀ §ArÃzÁj ¥À. PÉÌ G¼ÀzÀ eÁUÁ F ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è gÉÆÃzÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F JgÀqÀÄ D¹Û ¤ÃªÀÅ ©Ã£À±ÉÃwÌ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÁUÀ° zÁ£À¥ÀvÀæªÁUÀ° PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀzÀj Rj¢ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ JgÀqÀÄ eÁUÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÁUÀzÀ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É F §UÉÎ DUÀĪÀ RZÀÄ𠤪ÀÄäzÉà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F eÁUÁ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ G½zÀ eÁUÁªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀjÃw¬ÄAzÁUÀ° CPÉÊAiÀÄgï ªÀUÉÊgÉ K£ÀĪÀiÁqÀPÉÆqÀzÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ©£ï±ÉÃwÌ ªÀUÉÊgÉ ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀjÃw¬ÄAzÀ®Ä DvÀAPÀ - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 ªÀiÁqÀPÉÆqÀzÉAzÀÄ PÀgÁgÀÄ DUÀ®Ä F ¥ÀæPÁgÀ vÁªÀÅ vÀ¥ÀàzÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ CAvÁ §gɹ PÉÆlÖ ¸ÀzÀgÀ eÁUÁ Rjâ ¸ÀAZÉÃUÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw.= 16. There is no dispute of the fact that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of 21 guntas of land. Thus, as seen above in the plaint while the plaintiff claims his rights in respect of 5 guntas of land, defendants are claiming their rights to the extent of east to west 138 feet, north to south 45 feet on the eastern side, 49 feet on the western side and another extent of 2 guntas based on Ex.D5 which is extracted hereinabove. 17. Relevant to refer the paragraph No.21 of the judgment of the Trial Court in OS No.349/2007 wherein, the Trial Court has taken note of the contention of the plaintiff that the suit land measuring 5 guntas falls outside the compound wall of the school building. 18. Adverting the above, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs fairly submits that the suit schedule property do not include the property being claimed by the defendants. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 19. In that view of the matter, the denial of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by the defendants is insignificant. Since the defendants are claiming their right, title and interest over the property purported to have been acquired in terms of Ex.D.5, it is open for them to seek such remedy as may be available under law if so advised. 20. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033, a bald denial without any substance of the right, title and interest of a true owner of the defendants would not be sufficient to throw the suit and direct the plaintiff on seek for declaration. 21. In the light of the aforesaid disputed factual aspects of the matter with regard to the very identity of the property, the conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with. In that view of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 the matter, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM- para 01 to 14 SH 3 para 15 to till end CT-ASC / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [KAREGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA RAMALINGANNAVAR AND OTHERS VS. NANDEPPA M/O. MARIYAVVA YANKANNANAVAR AND OTHERS] 27.06.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORDER ON 8BEING SPOKEN TO9 1. The apprehension expressed by the counsel for the appellants is that, though learned counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly submitted that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff would not include the extent of property being claimed to be in possession of the defendants and the same is outside the area of the school property. Adverting to paragraph 21 of the judgment, she submits that the extent mentioned in the order was only two guntas and that there is a likelihood of this being misused. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents further reiterated his submission referring to paragraph 21 of the judgment wherein the plaintiff himself had contended that this five guntas of land is the subject matter of the suit falls outside the compound wall of the school building. That being on record, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7933 RSA No. 100463 of 2014 admitted by the plaintiff himself, reiterated by the learned counsel for the respondents, the appellants/defendants cannot have any objection in decreeing the suit for injunction in respect of the property outside the compound wall of the school. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore submits that, if this observation is recorded, the purpose of filing the appeal would be served. 4. The submission is taken on record. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE MBS