- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40249 RSA No. 129 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O K SHEENAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT SARVETHODI, NETTANIGE MUDNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK D K DISTRICT, PIN - 574313. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE, PIN - 575001. 2. SHANKARI BHANDARY, W/O LATE R K BHANDARY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT SARVEHODI HOUSE, KARNOOR POST, NETTANIGE MUDNOOR VILLAGE, P.O KARNOOR, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN - 574313. 3. MAHABALA BHANDARY, S/O LATE R K BHANDARY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT SARVEHODI HOUSE, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40249 RSA No. 129 of 2024 KARNOOR POST, NETTANIGE MUDNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN - 574313. 4. RATHNAKARA BHANDARY, S/O LATE R K BHANDARY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT SARVEHODI HOUSE, KARNOOR POST, NETTANIGE MUDNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN - 574313. 5. RADHAKRISHNA BHANDARY, S/O LATE R K BHANDARY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT SARVETHODI HOUSE, KARNOOR POST, NETTANIGE MUDNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA DISTRICT, PIN - 574313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, DGA FOR R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.18/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR TALUK, DK, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.10/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PUTTUR, D.K. TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40249 RSA No. 129 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is arising from concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. Plaintiff claim adverse possession over the property against the respondent-Government on the premise that the plaintiff is in possession of the property ever since he purchased the ownership land from the previous vendor which according to the plaintiff is adjacent to the suit property. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is enough evidence to establish the possession as well as adverse possession and the very fact that property in question is adjacent to the property purchased by the appellant would itself establish that the appellant is in possession of the property. 3. It is his further submission that the Trial Court has erroneously held that the person who claims adverse - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40249 RSA No. 129 of 2024 possession cannot file a suit and he can only defend a suit for possession. 4. The respondent - State has produced records to contend that the plaintiff and his vendors have been evicted from the Government land pursuant to the proceeding initiated. It is noticed that the finding recorded in the eviction proceeding is not questioned by the plaintiff. 5. First Appellate Court has also noticed that the adverse possession is not established by producing cogent evidence. 6. Since both the Courts have concurrently held that adverse possession is not established and more particularly given the fact that the respondent - State has produced the records for having evicted the plaintiff pursuant to proceeding initiated for the purpose, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40249 RSA No. 129 of 2024 7. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 8. Accordingly, Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9