- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100367 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MAHAMMADJAFAR, S/O. ABDULKHADAR HATTIWALE AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADARBAG, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581118. 2. ABDULRAZAK, S/O. MOHAMMAD JAFAR HATTIWALE AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADARBAG, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581118. 3. ALTAF S/O. MOHAMMAD JAFAR HATTIWALE AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADARBAG, SAVANUR TQ. SAVANUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI 581118. 4. ABDULREHAMAN, S/O. MOHAMMAD JAFAR HATTIWALE AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADARBAG, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR DISTRICT. HAVERI-581118. 5. ABDULKARIM, S/O. MOHAMMAD JAFAR HATTIWALE AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADARBAG, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI-581118. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Digitally signed by CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Date: 2025.09.09 10:54:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 AND: 1. SMT. JAIRABI, W/O. BASHEERAHAMMAD SOUDAGAR AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KHADARBAG STREET, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR DISTRICT. HAVERI-581118. 2. ABDUL GAFAR, S/O. MOHAMMAD JAFAR HATTIWALE AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADARBAG, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR DIST. HAVERI-581118. 3. ABDULSATTAR, S/O. MOHAMMAD JAFAR HATTIWALE AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADARBAG, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI-581118. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT, JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, SHIGGOAN, SITTING AT SAVANUR THE APPEAL DISMISSING AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2019, PASSED IN O.S. NO.140/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SAVANUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents on admission. 2. The appellants, who were defendants before the Trial Court, have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur, in O.S.No.140/2012, which was confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, sitting at Savanur, in R.A. No.14/2019 dated 03.12.2022. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, contending that the said property is a residential house and open site bearing No.465, situate at Ward No.IV, Block No.VIII of Savanur Taluk, measuring - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 68ft. × 17ft. 3 inch. It is further contended that the plaintiff, along with her son and daughter, are the absolute owners and are in lawful and peaceful possession of the suit property, having inherited it from their ancestors. She has been paying regular house tax to the concerned authorities, and her name appears in the municipal records. Except for herself, no one else has any right, title, or interest over the said property. 4. She has further stated that the defendants are also residing in her colony and that they have no right, title, or interest over the suit property. According to her, the defendants, being rich and politically influential persons, are insisting that she sell the suit property to them. She has alleged that the defendants threatened her, stating that if she did not sell the suit property to them, they would evict her from the said property on 18.04.2012. Therefore, she lodged a complaint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 against them at the Savanur Police Station, which was registered in Cr. No.51/2012. She has further contended that the defendants are seriously attempting to dispossess her by illegal means. On these grounds, she prayed for a decree in the suit. 5. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court, and defendant No.1 filed a written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants. 6. In the written statement, the defendants denied the plaint averments. They further pleaded that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- on 22.03.2003 in favour of defendant No.1, who is the father of defendant Nos.2 to 7. As per the said agreement, a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement itself, and the remaining balance of Rs.56,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the final sale deed. By virtue of the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 agreement of sale, possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant No.1 on 22.03.2003 itself, and since then, defendant No.1 along with his sons, the other defendants, have been residing in the suit property. 7. Defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to execute the final sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount, but she kept postponing it on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the plaintiff openly stated that she would not execute the sale deed of the suit property and tried to interfere with the defendants’ possession and enjoyment thereof. On one occasion, the plaintiff even attempted to interfere in the suit property, but was unsuccessful due to the timely intervention of adjoining residents. Immediately thereafter, on 19.04.2012 at about 6:30 a.m., defendant No.1 made an application to the Savanur Police Station, and later, on 21.04.2012, lodged a complaint through defendant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 No.4. In pursuance of the said complaint, the plaintiff was arrested and subsequently released on bail. 8. The physical possession of the defendants has also been established through the investigation conducted by the jurisdictional police while drawing the spot panchanama of the suit property. The police categorically recorded that the defendants were in actual and physical possession of the suit property. Photographs were also taken showing the defendants in possession. To further prove their possession, the defendants produced several postal and private correspondences addressed to the suit property and also filed affidavits of adjoining owners and residents corroborating their physical possession. 9. It is further stated that the plaintiff is making these illegal attempts only with the intention of dispossessing the defendants from the suit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 property by taking the law into her own hands and thereafter disposing of the property to others for a higher price. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit with costs. 10. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed four issues for consideration. To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and produced 24 documents, which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.24. After closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendants did not adduce any evidence, nor were any documents marked on their behalf. 11. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the present appellants preferred a Regular First Appeal before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, sitting at Savanur, in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 R.A.No.14/2019. The said appeal came to be dismissed with costs on 03.12.2022. 12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts are illegal, perverse, and capricious, and not in accordance with law or facts. It is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit property by virtue of an agreement of sale. Merely because the defendants have not filed a suit for specific performance, the same cannot be a ground to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff. 14. The Courts below failed to take notice of the fact that the plaintiff, at an undisputed point of time, admitted that the defendants were in possession of the suit property and had also made a statement to that effect before the police authorities. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 The plaintiff is therefore entitled to take possession of the property only through due course of law. 15. The Courts below further failed to consider that in a suit for a bare injunction, what is required to be examined is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing the suit and whether the defendants were obstructing such possession. When the plaintiff herself made a statement before the police authorities acknowledging that the defendants were in possession of the suit property, and also lodged a police complaint against the defendants, the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property, and as such, she was not entitled to the grant of an injunction in her favour. 16. The Courts below have also committed a serious error in failing to take notice of the fact that the defendants were not given a proper opportunity - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 to disprove the plaintiff’s case. The Trial Court, by recording cross-examination as nil and evidence of the defendants as nil, straightaway posted the case for arguments. The lower appellate court ought to have granted the defendants an opportunity to prove their case. Although the defendants sought such an opportunity, the First Appellate Court erred in not granting it. On these grounds, the appellants have sought to formulate substantial questions of law and admitted this appeal. 17. I have examined the materials placed before me. 18. To prove her case, the plaintiff produced property extracts at Exs.P.1 to P.14, showing ownership in the names of the plaintiff, her son, and daughter, along with the tax-paid receipt at Ex.P.13, photographs at Exs.P.16 and P.17, and a CD at Ex.P18. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 19. Both the Courts have clearly observed that the defendants failed to produce the alleged agreement of sale dated 22.03.2003. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants did not produce the alleged agreement of sale dated 22.03.2003 either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. Even this Court, by order dated 19.08.2025, directed the appellants to produce the said agreement of sale; however, the appellants did not comply. Further, the appellants did not file any application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC either before the First Appellate Court or before this Court. Defendants have also failed to produce any material to discredit the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11093 RSA No. 100367 of 2023 20. I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court. There are no grounds to formulate substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 of the CPC. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8