- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 535 OF 2015 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS I.E., APPELLANTS 2 TO 8 2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O SRI HEERAPPA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA. 3. SMT. LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O SRI SUBBARAYAPPA. 4. a. SRI NARASIMHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. KRISHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA. b. SMT. KALAVATHI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 c. SRI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA. d. SRI NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA 5. SMT. KRISHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA. 6. SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA. 7. SRI MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA. 8. SRI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SOMAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI CHIDANANDA S MATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: H MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE EERANNA R/AT SOMAPURA VILLAGE BECHARAK SONNADENA HALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 HOSAKOTE TLAUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI BABU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2014 PASSED IN RA No. 101/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (RURAL) DISTRICT, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.08.2012 PASSED IN OS NO 11/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 in RA No.101/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short the ‘First Appellate Court’) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree in OS No.11/2006 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote (for short ‘the Trial Court’), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, in part. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit property bearing Kaneshumari old No.62 (New No.43), measuring 38 x 76 feet of Sompura Village, Hoskote Taluk, has been in possession of the grand-father of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that, the defendant without any manner of right, title and interest over the property in question, has interfered with the peaceful possession of the property in question. Accordingly, the plaintiffs preferred OS No.11/2006 before the Trial Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. 4. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant that, the defendant is a relative of the plaintiffs and there is no partition in respect of the great-grandfather of the defendant, who is also the grandfather of the plaintiffs and therefore, it is the case of the defendant that, the defendant also has a share in the suit property and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, has formulated the issues for its consideration. 6. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and produced 12 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. The defendant has examined 3 witnesses as DW.1 to 3 and marked 6 documents as Exs.D1 to D6. The Secretary of the Doddahulluru Grama Panchayath was examined as CW.1 and marked 11 documents on his behalf as Exs.C1 to C11. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 23.8.2012 decreed the suit in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred RA No.101/2012 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 dismissed the appeal and consequently affirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.11/2006. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 8. This Court, vide order dated 14.11.2019 has formulated the following substantial questions of law: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 i) Whether the Courts have erred in accepting the contention of the defendants that the property that was allotted to the defendants, i.e., Khaneshumari No.46 (old No.62) was the schedule property itself without any pleading by the defendants in that regard? ii) Whether the Courts could have granted injunction with respect to one-fourth extent of the schedule property when no case to that effect is found in the pleadings? 9. Heard Sri.Chidananda S.Mathad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. Sri.Chidananda S.Mathad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the appeal as the First Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that, the land in question is belonging to the forefathers of the plaintiffs and thereafter, the father of the plaintiffs had derived the title as per the partition deed said to have been executed between the great-grandfather of the plaintiffs (Dodda Muniyappa) and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 the Great - Grand father of the defendant and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, on careful examination of the averments made in the plaint and the finding recorded by the Trial Court in respect of the issue No.1 and 2 are concerned, the Trial Court has partly affirmatively held that, the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of injunction based on the possession concerned. In this regard, on careful examination of the written statement filed by the defendant, it would indicate that the defendant has disputed the title of the plaintiffs concerned. In that view of the matter, the defendant has raised a plea disputing the title of the plaintiff and therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiffs ought to have converted the suit for permanent injunction in to suit for declaration seeking the relief in respect of the subject land concerned. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31251 RSA No. 535 of 2015 P.Bhuchi Reddy (D) by LR's and Ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and no interference is called for in this appeal. Accordingly, substantial questions of law framed above favours the defendant. 13. In the result, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42