- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4352 RSA No. 100200 of 2022 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. 100200 OF 2022 (INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MAHARUDRAYYA S/O. GADAGAYYA GUDI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAVALI ONI, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115. 2. SHRI. GANGAYYA MAHARUDRAYYA GUDI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. JAVALI ONI, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115. 3. SHRI. JAGADISH MAHARUDRAYYA GUDI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. JAVALI ONI, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI & SRI. RAMESH M. BILKI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHRI. JAGADEESH SOMASHEKAR BIKKANNAWAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SOMWARPET, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115. 2. SHRI. KUMAR CHANDRAMOULI BIKKANNAWAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. VIDYAGIRI GURUVARAPET, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4352 RSA No. 100200 of 2022 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BAILHONGAL IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S. NO.84/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KITTUR AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2020 in R.A.No.49/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2018 in O.S.No.84/2015 (old O.S.No.48/2011) on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kittur2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4352 RSA No. 100200 of 2022 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit scheduled property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the suit property is Inam property granted in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs –Kallayya Gudi @ Hebballimath and therefore it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants without any semblance of right are interfering with the suit schedule property and as such the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.84/2015 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement and took up a specific contention that the description of the suit schedule property is vague and further the defendants denied the title of the property in question and accordingly the defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the plantings on record, the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration. In order to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4352 RSA No. 100200 of 2022 establish their case, the plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and got marked 58 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.58. The defendants have examined three witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.4. The Trial Court by its judgement and decree dated 27.11.2018 dismissed the suit and Feeling by the same the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.49/2018 before the First Appellate Court and the appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court by its judgement and decree dated 07.09.2020 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. 6. Heard Sri.Shivaraj C Bellakki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.P.G.Chikkanaragund, learned counsel appearing for the caveator respondent. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the admission - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4352 RSA No. 100200 of 2022 of DW.1 in the cross-examination with regard to the encroachment and the interference made by the defendants and therefore sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of Commissioner to identify with regard to the possessory right of the plaintiff, however, the said aspect was not considered by the First Appellate Court and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the judgement and decree passed by the Courts below. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the averments made in the plaint, the suit schedule property is the Inam land said to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff as urged in the plaint. The said aspect has been countered by the defendant by filing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4352 RSA No. 100200 of 2022 written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff insofar as suit schedule property is concerned. 10. 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 vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs and Others reported in 2008 (4) SCC 594, I am of the view that both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right over the property in question since the defendants have raised a plea in the written statement disputing the title of the plaintiffs. 11. It is also to be noted that the possessory right of the plaintiff was also questioned before the Trial Court and the Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, rightly dismissed the suit and same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4352 RSA No. 100200 of 2022 12. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as the appellant herein has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law and as both the Courts below have recorded concurrent facts on record and dismissed the suit. 13. Hence, the appeal fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33