- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100846 OF 2018 (INJ-) BETWEEN: SRI. SAIFANSAB S/O. RAJESAB HALINGALI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 5987313. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. DEEPA P. DODDATTI, FOR SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATES) AND: PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYATH, SHIROL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE - 5987313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., MUDHOL IN R.A.NO.17/2017 DATED 10.10.2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., AT MUDHOL IN O.S.NO.354/2013 DATED 06.03.2017, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF MAY KINDLY BE DECREED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.01 11:43:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018 in R.A.No.17/2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017 in O.S.No.354/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and is paying tax to the respondent - Panchayat. It is also stated in the petition that, the defendant has interfered with the suit schedule property during 2000 and as such the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.281/2000 seeking permanent injunction against the defendant and the said suit came to 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 be decreed on 05.04.2007. The said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court reached finality. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the respondent – Panchayat, which came to be allowed and therefore it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has no semblance of right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, suit in O.S.No.354/2013 is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. 4. On service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection denying the averments made in the plaint. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 16 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.16. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 The Officer of the defendant was examined as DW.1 and no documents were produced by the defendant. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017, dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.17/2017 and the appeal was resisted by the defendant - Panchayat. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.354/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. This Court vide order dated 14.03.2022 admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether trial court and first appellate court are justified in dismissing suit of Plaintiff for permanent injunction holding that Defendant/Panchayath has disputed ownership of the Plaintiff over suit property; when Plaintiff has proved his lawful ownership and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 possession over suit property and also illegal interference by Defendant/Panchayath? 2. Whether trial court and first appellate court are justified in holding that when the title is disputed by other side, simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable; when grant of relief of injunction is solely dependant upon the possession over the property and alleged interference by the other side? 8. I have heard Smt.Deepa P Doddatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.G.I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have not considered the fact that the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the resolution passed by the Panchayat before the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat was set aside and same has reached finality. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that despite there being decree in O.S.No.281/2000, the defendant - - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 Panchayat is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that res-judicata is applicable to the case on hand and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and the finding recorded by both the Courts below would indicate that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, has answered issue No.1 stating that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property despite the same has erroneously dismissed the suit, which requires to be interfered with in this appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 12. It is also to be noted that as per Ex.P.10, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.281/2000 wherein the said suit came to be decreed, restraining the defendants (respondents herein) from interfering with the suit schedule property. The said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has reached finality since the defendant has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.281/2000. 13. It is also forthcoming from Ex.P.13 wherein the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Mudhol, by order dated 14.02.2013 in Appeal No.1/2012-13, set aside the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 18.04.2012. In that view of the matter, having taken note of the factual aspects on record, as DW.1 himself has admitted before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiff. 14. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1542 RSA No. 100846 of 2018 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018 in R.A.No.17/2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is set aside. iii. The judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017 in O.S.No.354/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is set aside. iv. Suit is decreed restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33