- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35381 RSA NO.2204 OF 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2204 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: BASAVANNA S/O LATE KONGALAPPA, R/O HASAGULI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 111. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: PUTTASWAMAPPA S/O LATE MALEYAPPA, R/O HASAGULI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 111. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHAIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04TH JULY, 2017 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.23 OF 2017 (70/2012) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02ND AUGUST, 2012 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.55 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUNDLUPET. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35381 RSA NO.2204 OF 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04th July, 2017 passed in Regular Appeal No.23 of 2017 (70/2012) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Gundlupet (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 02nd August, 2012 passed in Original Suit No.55 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Gundlupet (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and in this regard, RTC extracts are produced, which shows the name of Javaraiah s/o Kanthaiah, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant without any title or interest over the suit schedule property, is interfering with the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiff filed the instant suit, seeking relief of permanent injunction. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35381 RSA NO.2204 OF 2017 4. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 5. It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit schedule property was purchased by the father of the defendant as per registered Sale Deed dated 17th March, 1958 from the father of the plaintiff for a valuable consideration and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated the issues for its consideration. 7. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked 20 documents as Exhibits P1 to P20. On the other hand, the defendant neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence on his behalf. 8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 02nd August, 2012, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the Regular Appeal No.23 of 2017 (70/2012) before the First Appellate Court and the same was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35381 RSA NO.2204 OF 2017 resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 04th July, 2017, dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal. 9. Heard Sri. Somashekar Kashimath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Sarvamangala Chikkanagoudar, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Hiremathad Maheshaiah Rudrayya, appearing for the respondent. 10. Sri. Somashekar Kashimath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, both the Courts below have committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the revenue records and Tax paid Receipts produced at Exhibits P1 to P20. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 11. Per contra, Smt. Sarvamangala Chikkanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, both the Courts below have given concurrent findings and arrived at a right conclusion. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35381 RSA NO.2204 OF 2017 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the pleadings on record, the same would indicate that the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he has inherited the suit schedule property from his grandfather late Javaraiah S/o Kanthaiah. It is also to be noted that the defendant in his written statement disputed the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also stated that the father of the defendant had purchased the suit schedule property from the father of the plaintiff as per registered Sale Deed dated 17th March, 1958 for a valuable consideration. In that view of the matter, since the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in the written statement, I am of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking relief of permanent injunction without claiming relief of declaration is not maintainable. Therefore, in view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR vs. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033, I am of the view that appellant/plaintiff has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure and the present appeal deserves to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35381 RSA NO.2204 OF 2017 dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending I.A. stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39