- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5885 OF 2012 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. GANGADHAR G. BHAT, S/O. GANESH BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O: KEREKAI, MENSIKERI POST, CHIPGI, SIRSI TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, & SRI. SANTOSH MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. U.F.M PARMESHWAR S. JOSHI, S/O. SHANKAR JOSHI, REP. BY HIS LRS. 1a) MADUKESHWAR P. JOSHI, S/O. PARMESHWAR S. JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1b) RAGHUPATHI P. JOSHI, S/O. PARAMESHWAR S. JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R1(a) & (b) ARE R/O. KEREKAI, MENSAINKERI, POST CHIPGI, SIRSI TALUK-581401, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.07 16:18:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 2. RAMAKRISHNA S. BHAT, S/O. SUBRAY BHAT, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KEREKAI, MENSAINKERI, POST CHIPGI, SIRSI TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 3. RAGHUPATI N. JOSHI, S/O. NARAYAN JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. KEREKAI, MENSAINKERI POST, CHIPGI, TALUK: SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 4. SHRIKANT M. BHAT, S/O. MAHABALESHWAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. KEREKAI, MENSAINKERI POST, CHIPGI, TALUK: SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 5. SHRIDHAR R. BHAT, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. KEREKAI, MENSIKERI POST, CHIPGI, TALUK: SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 6. LAXMINARAYAN R. BHAT, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. KEREKAI, MENSIKERI-RANJALMAKKI POST, CHIPGI, TALUK: SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 7. GAJANANA R. JOSHI, S/O. RAMANATH JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O. KEREKAI, KULVE POST, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 CHIPGI, TALUK: SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 8. RAMACHANDRA M. SHASTRI, S/O. MANJUNATH SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O: "TERKANALLI, KULAVE POST, CHIPGI, TALUK: SIRSI-581401, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI G. SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1(a) & R1(b) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 06.06.2012 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, SIRSI IN R.A.NO.38/2009, IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) SIRSI, IN O.S. NO.4/2004 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELEVERIED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and order dated 06.06.2012 in R.A.No.38/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Sirsi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) allowing the appeal and setting aside the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 in O.S.No.4/2004 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Sirsi (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the said of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The averment made in the plaint that the land bearing Survey No.115 of Terakanalli village of Sirsi Taluk is the Malki property of the plaintiff. It is stated that to the western side of the schedule property, the property bearing Survey No.274 measuring 30 Guntas is situate and the said property is in cultivation of the plaintiff since 1962. It is the case of the plaintiff that the schedule property has been granted to the plaintiff as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 01.04.1965 and therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is growing areca, coconut and banana plantations by investing huge amount and therefore, stated that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendants, without any right, title or interest in respect of the schedule property, are obstructing the use of water as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 well as possession of the land in question and accordingly, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.4/2004 seeking permanent injunction against the defendants. 3.1. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. It is the specific case of the defendant No.3 that the plaintiff is not the owner of the schedule property and schedule property is belonging to the Government and the plaintiff in order to grab the schedule property has filed the present suit and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, has formulated the issues for its consideration. 3.2. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and produced six documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The defendants examined one witness as DW1 and no documents were produced on behalf of the defendants. 3.3. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 decreed the suit and restrained the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred R.A.No.38/2009 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 06.06.2012, allowed the appeal, consequently, set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4/2004. Hence, this appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. 4. I have heard by Sri. Santosh Mane, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Ravi G Sabahit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant herein is in cultivation of the land in question for more than three decades and therefore, the presumptive value is attached to the plaintiff and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 6. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the First Appellate Court has erroneously misconstrued the documents produced at Ex.P4, which is an order of grant made in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, sought for inference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court and further contended that the defendants herein have raised plea of disputing title of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, it is argued that the suit seeking relief of permanent injunction itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 9. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Survey No.274 is a vast land in which 30 Guntas of land is subject matter of the suit. Having taken note of the finding - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 recorded by the Trial Court, the plaintiff herein has produced Ex.P3 certified copy of the RTC in respect of Survey No.115, which stands in the name of Suresh Gangadhar Bhat/PW1 and also on perusal of Ex.P4, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar wherein it is stated that the land in question has been granted, however undisputedly the land in question is a forest land belonging to the Government and therefore, the revenue authorities have no semblance of right to grant the forest land to the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union Of India and others1, it is well settled principle that the Revenue Authorities have no right to grant forest land to anyone muchless to the plaintiff herein. In that view of the matter, I find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in question. The entire extent of land in Survey No.115 of 1 AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1228 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4323 RSA No. 5885 of 2012 Terakanalli said land belongs to Forest Department. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction and therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. In the result, the appeal fails. 10. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22