- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14256 RSA No. 5387 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5387 OF 2010 (INJ) BETWEEN: PEERAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA SALUNKE, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINDAGI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.R. DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND: MUKKANNA S/O. YAMANAPA WALIKAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINDAGI, TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN R.A.NO.39/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BAGALKOTE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2009 AND THEREBY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2008 IN O.S.NO.167/2006 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) BAGALKOTE BE RESTORED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.28 11:25:48 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14256 RSA No. 5387 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) None appears for the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. 3. On perusal, the records would reveal that a suit for injunction filed by the respondent herein came to be dismissed on the ground that the property regarding which injunction is sought had been acquired by the Government. The said dismissal of the suit was questioned by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.39/2008. By judgment dated 05.09.2009, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court directing the defendant not to interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the defendant is before this Court in appeal. 4. It is noticed that there is no representation by the appellant when the matter is called. The appeal is slated for arguments today. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14256 RSA No. 5387 of 2010 5. It is pertinent to note that injunction can be granted to a person who is in lawful possession. In the case on hand, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the acquisition by the Government would result in losing possession over the suit schedule property. It was the specific contention of the plaintiff that despite there being acquisition, the possession was not taken over by the acquisitioning authority and therefore, there is lawful possession over the property. Such contention of the respondent herein (plaintiff) was upheld by the First Appellate Court. 6. No infirmity can be found in the impugned judgment, since the enjoyment of the property remains with the person despite the acquisition and award thereof. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act provide for a procedure in taking possession of the property. Till such possession is taken over by the acquisitioning authority, the lawful possessor is entitled to protect the same from third parties. 7. Under these circumstances, the decision of the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with. In that view of the matter, the appeal is bereft of merits. It is also noticed that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14256 RSA No. 5387 of 2010 despite granting ample opportunities, the appellant is not turning up. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32