- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3521 RSA No. 100569 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100569 OF 2023 (INJ-) BETWEEN: MALAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA YAMOJI AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. SHRIRAM NAGAR, DHARWAD – 580001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD – 580001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2021 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DHARWAD IN R.A.NO.48/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY, CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED BY III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC., DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.86/2017. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3521 RSA No. 100569 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2021 in R.A.No.48/2021 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Dharwad1 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 in O.S.No.86/2017 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Sy.No.81D and 81E belonged to one Deshapande’s family and the said family has allowed poor people to construct residential house therein. It is also stated by the plaintiff that the suit property is allotted to the ancestors of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has constructed houses in 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3521 RSA No. 100569 of 2023 the suit schedule property. Accordingly, as the defendants have interfered with the same, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.86/2017 seeking relief of injunction against the defendants. 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also took up a contention that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the land in question. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined one witness as PW.1 and produced 8 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8. The defendants have examined one witness as DW.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3521 RSA No. 100569 of 2023 decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent - State has preferred R.A.No.48/2021 on the file of the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.04.2021, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and as such, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent – State. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. I have heard Sri.Iranagouda K Kabbur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.Mala B Bhute, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant/plaintiff has produced relevant documents to establish right over the property in question and the Tahasildar, Dharwad has conducted survey insofar as the land in question, however, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3521 RSA No. 100569 of 2023 the defendants without any semblance of right have interfered with the possession of the suit schedule property. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Hanumant Nagar Co- operative Housing Society, Dharwad had gifted the property in question to the Police Commissioner, Hubballi- Dharwad and therefore he contended that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with in this appeal. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and contended that the land in question is consisting of slabs and rocks which belong to the Government and therefore as the Government has formed road adjacent to same and therefore submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in granting relief of injunction and same has rightly interfered with by the First Appellate Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3521 RSA No. 100569 of 2023 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that the plaintiff has not produced any document to establish that he is having legal right insofar as the suit schedule property is concerned. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Courts below, even Ex.P.8 – report of the Court Commissioner submitted in O.S.No.663/2011 makes it clear that the land in question is belong to the Government. 11. In that view of the matter, taking into account that the plaintiff herein has no right over the property in question and unless he produce, relevant documents to establish his right over the property in question as well as possession in respect of the land in question, finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and the Trial Court has committed an error in granting relief of injunction and same was rightly rectified by the First Appellate Court following the declaration of law made - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3521 RSA No. 100569 of 2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LR’s reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15