- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.595 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NAGARAJA BHATTA S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. GIRISH S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. RAMESH S/O DEWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 4. BHASKAR BHATTA S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 5. PRABHAKAR S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. NATESH S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT GUNDIGA MARAGALALE VILLAGE GUDDEKOPPA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK 577432 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI ASHWATH C.M, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 AND: 1. RAJENDRA G V S/O VASOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT GUNDIGA MARAGALALE VILLAGE GUDDEKOPPA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK 577432 2. VENKATESH S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT GUNDIGA MARAGALALE VILLAGE GUDDEKOPPA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK 577432 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2022 PASSED IN R.A. No.43/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction is that the suit schedule property was granted land in Sy.No.60 to the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule. It is contended that the plaintiff is residing in the said properties since long ago. Before granting the land, he had filed Form No.53 for confirmation of the same under the scheme of Bhagar Hukum and Saguvali Chit was also issued on 31.10.2012 and boundaries of the said property is also described in respect of the property i.e., the Sy.No.60. The property is also phoded and renumber was given as Sy.No.80. Though the defendants have no manner of right, title over the suit schedule property, causing interference over the suit schedule property. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 contending that the averments made in the plaint is false and totally denied the filing of Form No.53 and granting of the same in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants also claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and also given the schedule. 4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff as well as the claim made by the defendants taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses. In paragraph 11, the case of the plaintiff and also the cross-examination and answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 was extracted and so also in paragraph 13, the case of the defendants also taken note of and comes to the conclusion that the documents produced by the plaintiff i.e., RTCs, revenue sketch, phodi sketch and Akarband are able to establish the location, boundaries and extent of the suit schedule property and also shows the possession of he plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, accepted the case of the plaintiff. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that both the properties are different. The Trial Court also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 in the cross- examination that the phodi work of the plaintiff was not questioned by the defendants and they have also not challenged the revenue entries which are stand in the name of the plaintiff. They have also no documents to prove the boundaries of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.60 and also admits that 3 acres of land was not made permanent in favour of his father and after his death, in the name of the defendant. Having taken note of the same, in paragraph 26, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that suit schedule property is in the possession of the plaintiff, thus, granted the relief of permanent injunction. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the points that whether the Trial Court is right in holding that the plaintiff has made out a case proving that he is in possession of the property and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 interference. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the case of the plaintiff in paragraphs 16 to 18 and also taken note of admission on the part of DW1 in the cross-examination. The First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that the land was granted in favour of plaintiff under Bhagar Hukum scheme and defendants have not questioned the revenue documents and also taken note of claim made by the defendants and comes to the conclusion that the defendants claims only temporary occupation and permanent grant was not made in favour of the defendants and no documents are placed to establish their possession to the extent of 3 acres is concerned. In paragraph 28, taken note of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner. In paragraph 29 also comes to the conclusion that boundaries prevail over the extent and boundary also taken note of. In paragraph 31 taken note of Ex.P1 and P3 as they specify the boundaries to the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas upon which the plaintiff claims to have possession of the property and as Ex.D3 which relies upon the defendants does not show boundaries but the measurement of the property though has been specifically - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 pleaded on the basis of it. But in order to prove the boundaries, defendants have not placed any material and considering the same, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal is that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule property even though the same is disputed. The counsel also would contend that revenue authorities have remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh survey and both the Courts have not justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff since the application for grant by defendants’ father was pending before the concerned authority. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record as well as the reasoning of both the Courts, it is very clear that the land was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 granted in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas and the revenue documents also supports the case of the plaintiff. The categorical admission of DW1 that he did not challenge the revenue documents of the plaintiff. Apart from that not disputing the grant made in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the fact clearly discloses that Form No.53 was filed by the plaintiff and thereafter the committee considered the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, the documents clearly establish the possession of the plaintiff. Based on both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, both the Courts come to the conclusion that plaintiff has established his possession. Apart from that both the Courts taken note of the fact that no boundary documents are placed by the defendants who claim to the extent of 3 acres. The application filed by the defendants also pending for consideration and not yet granted the same. When there was a grant and the same was supported by the documents, it clearly depicts the possession of the plaintiff. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law since both the question of fact and question of law are considered by both the Courts and no perversity in the finding of both the Courts. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48248 RSA No. 595 of 2023 Under the circumstances, no ground is made out to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN