- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SHIVAPADU S/O DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O AKALA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. MADEVA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 ALL ARE CHILDREN OF CHIKKAMADAIAH, R/O AKALA VILLAGE, NANJANAGUDU TQ, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 R1 - MADAIAH; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DECREE DATED 21.11.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, NANJANGUD., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.6.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.235/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDE, AND JMFC., NANJANGUD. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2015, passed in R.A.No.49/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjanagudu, and the judgment and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 decree dated 20.06.2014, passed in O.S.No.235/2011 by the learned Pr. Civil Judge, and JMFC, Nanjanagudu. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the plaintiffs’ father as a darkhast on 04.08.1979, as the plaintiffs belong to the scheduled caste under Section 3 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. After the demise of their father, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants without any right, interest or title over the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 suit schedule property, are disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs lodged a complaint against the defendants before the concerned police and also issued a legal notice dated 18.05.2011. The police did not take any action against the defendants. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for a perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that there is no cause of action to file the suit. It is contended that the defendants has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for a long time. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned pleadings, framed the relevant issues and additional issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 3.3. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, examined 2 witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The trial Court, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, additional issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed holding that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. It is further order and decreed that the defendants and their agents are restrained from interfering the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession by way of permanent injunction. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.235/2011 preferred an appeal in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 R.A.No.49/2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjanagudu. 3.4. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the points for consideration. 3.5. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.11.2015, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3.6. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiffs have make a wrongful engagement and to harass the defendants, has filed a false suit against the defendants. It is also contended that defendant No.1 purchased 4 acres of land in Sy.No.126 under a registered sale deed dated 19.01.1973. The said aspect was not properly considered by the courts below and they committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He submits that the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are arbitrary, erroneous and perverse. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the defendants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 7. The plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the names of the plaintiffs are shown in the revenue records as in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants are interfering with their peaceful possession. The first Appellate Court drawing presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has held that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Both courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26554 RSA No. 287 of 2016 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB CT: BHK