- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.433 OF 2015 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. K.R. EREGOWDA S/O SRI. RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O HULLEKERE VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 577 103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HEDGE., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BASAVARAJA S/O SRI. BASAVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O HULLEKERE VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 577 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. VINAYKEERTHI, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18TH DECEMBER, 2014 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.37 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09TH APRIL, 2009 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.118 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., ARSIKERE. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18th December, 2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.37 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Arasikere (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal in-part and modifying the judgment and decree dated 09th April, 2009 passed in Original Suit No.118 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Arasikere (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to decreed. 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 was granted to the plaintiff on 12th May, 2006 and the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant had interfered with the suit schedule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 property and therefore, the plaintiff filed the instant suit before Trial Court, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. 4. Upon service of notice, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 5. It is the specific case of the defendant that the land bearing survey No.102 of Hullekere village, Arasikere Taluk is measuring 3.09 acres and towards the Northern portion of the suit schedule property to an extent of 1.23 acres was unauthorisedly being cultivated by the plaintiff and towards Southern side, an extent of 1.23 acres was unauthorisedly being cultivated by the defendant. The defendant contended that the plaintiff in collusion with the Revenue officials prepared a sketch with regard to the land being cultivated by the defendant and therefore, as there is discrepancy in the measurement of the land in question, the father of the defendant preferred R.A.No.25/07-08 and the said appeal is pending consideration before the competent appellate authority. The defendant also disputes the possession of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 plaintiff in the suit schedule property and accordingly 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, plaintiff examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 5 documents as Exhibits P1 to P5. On the other hand, defendants examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits D1 to D4. 8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 09th April, 2009, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred Regular Appeal No.37 of 2009 before the First Appellate Court and same was contested by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18th December, 2014, allowed the appeal in-part and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.118 of 2007. Hence, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 9. This Court, by order 23rd June, 2016, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting injunction in respect of suit schedule property by modifying the boundaries contrary to the schedule given in the plaint? ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court based on Ex.D1 which apparently does not depict the boundary as recorded by the lower appellate Court? iii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, even though the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 was allowed? iv) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 10. Heard Sri. Girish S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. M. Vinaykeerthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 11. Sri. Girish S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant/plaintiff being - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 aggrieved by the change of boundary by the First Appellate Court without there being any basis, is before this Court, challenging the said finding recorded by the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the First Appellate Court, misconstrued the survey sketch produced at Exhibit D1 and interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, Sri. M. Vinaykeerthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant based on the Grant Certificate produced at Exhibit P1. On the other hand, no grant certificate has been produced by the defendant to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. Perusal of the cross-examination of DW1 makes it clear that the defendant was aware about the boundary of the land bearing Survey No.102 being cultivated by the plaintiff, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 and therefore, the Trial Court, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. However, the First Appellate Court, wrongly interfered with the schedule to the suit property and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It is also to be noted that, it is the duty of the First Appellate Court to re- assess the evidence on record as per Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The First Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the documents marked before the Trial Court and further to change the boundaries of the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and accordingly, the substantial question of law referred to above favours the plaintiff as the First Appellate Court committed an error in modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court suffers from perversity since, the First Appellate Court overlooked the schedule mentioned in the grant certificate at Exhibit-P1. It is open for the parties to seek declaratory relief in the event of there being dispute with regard to title. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37055 RSA NO.433 OF 2015 O R D E R 1) Regular Second Appeal allowed; 2) Judgment and decree dated 18th December, 2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.37 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Arsikere is hereby set-aside; 3) Judgment and decree dated 09th April, 2009 passed in Original Suit No.118 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Arasikere is hereby confirmed. 4) Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed accordingly. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49