- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: M.R. RAVICHANDRA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT MARANAGERE COLONY TIPTUR TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RANGARAMAIAH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT MARANAGERE COLONY TIPTUR TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 221 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R A DEV ANAND, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 10.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 19.3.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.80/2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, TIPTUR. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012 passed in R.A.No.42/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 25 years, and the suit property was granted in his favour, on 31.03.1982 by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 Block Development officer, Tiptur. Thereafter, the plaintiff started paying taxes on the suit schedule property. The defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendant, not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant did not heed the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is the defence of the defendant that Sy.No. 54 of Maranagere village, site No.C was granted in favour of the defendant in 1989, and he is regularly paying tax to the concerned Department, and it is contended that the description and boundaries of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 schedule property shown in the plaint are false and imaginary. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. 1) Whether the plaintiff proves lawful possession of suit schedule property as on date of suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendant? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction? 4) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 15 documents as Exs.D1 to D15. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 evidence, answered issue No.1 to 3 in the negative, issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs vide judgment dated 19.03.2008. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.80/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.42/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. 3.4. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse, capricious and opposed to law and does it need interference by this Court? 2) What order? 3.5. The first Appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 as per findings and point No.2 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 10.12.2012. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 3.6. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.42/2008, has filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Pramod R., learned counsel for the defendant and Sri. R.A. Dev Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the first Appellate Court, being a fact finding Court, has to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. He submits that the first Appellate Court has not considered the evidence led by the parties and has not framed proper points for consideration and the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. He submits that if the first Appellate Court intends to reverse the judgment of the trial Court, it has to assign reasons. He submits that the first Appellate Court, except for a general expression, has not assigned any reasons for reversing the judgment and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 decree passed by the trial Court. To buttress his arguments, he has placed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui dead by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in (2011) 2 KCCR 1389 and prays to remit the matter to the first Appellate Court for reconsideration. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgment and submits that the first Appellate Court has framed the points for consideration and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and there is compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 “Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC?” 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The plaintiff has filed a suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked 7 documents. On the other hand, the defendant also examined two witnesses and marked 15 documents. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 19.03.2008. 10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80/2007, preferred an appeal in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 R.A.No.42/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. 11. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration. 1) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse, capricious and opposed to law and does it need interference by this Court? 2) What order? 12. From the perusal of the points for consideration framed by the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court has not framed correctly the points for consideration, though, the trial Court has framed as many as 4 issues. Further, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, the first Appellate Court, except recording the statements of the learned counsel for the parties, has not re-appreciated the evidence of PW.1, and PW.2, and DW.1 and DW.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui dead by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 (2011) 2 KCCR 1389, had an occasion to deal with the requirements of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the said provisions provide guidelines for the first appellate Court as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the appeal. It is further observed that the provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. It must be evident from the judgment of the first appellate Court that the Court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. 14. In paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering its several judgments, observed thus: “It is mandatory for the appellate Court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final Court - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 of fact, the first appellate Court must not record the mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (emphasis supplied) 15. On the perusal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court has recorded the general expression, has not re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and has not framed the proper points for consideration. The judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, and is contrary to the ratio laid down in the case of H. Siddiqui (D) by LRs (referred to supra). The matter requires reconsideration by the first Appellate Court. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is required to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.42/2008 dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, is restored. iii. The first Appellate Court is directed to pass the judgment in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. iv. This Court has not made any adjudication on the merits in issue. v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. vi. The parties are directed to appear before the first Appellate Court on 09.09.2025 without awaiting any notice. vii. The office is directed to transmit the records to the first Appellate Court. viii. As the appeal is of the year 2008, the first Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26079 RSA No. 1693 of 2013 In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2013 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11