- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.666 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND HUMAN CARE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI M SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE MURUGESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A OLD EMPLOYMENT OFFICE BUILDING, PREMISES, SMITH ROAD OORGAUM POST KGF-563120 …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ESTATE OFFICER BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD SUVARNA BHAVAN OORGAUM POST KGF-563120 2. THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER(CSO) BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD(BGML) SUVARNA BHAVAN OORGAUM POST KGF-563120 …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2024 PASSED IN R.A.No.80/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, K.G.F, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2023 PASSED IN O.S.No.394/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Plaintiff is the Appellant in the present Second Appeal challenging the judgment dated 04.03.2023 passed in O.S.No. 394/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF, in respect of item No.2 of the suit property, which reads as under: “ITEM No.2 All that piece and parcel of the vacant land, used as play ground with stone slabbed and barbed wire fencing in Survey No.249, measuring 1.28 acres situated at Smith Road, Oorgaum Limits Oorgaum Post, KGF-563120 and the same is bounded on the East by:Jamkhana Foot Ball ground, West by: Smith Road, North by:Vacant land and on the South by: Environment Research and Human Protection Institution.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit for injunction came to be filed in respect of item no.2 of the suit property mentioned above. It is contended that plaintiff institution is sanctioned the suit properties for providing free education to the poor and needy persons and plaintiff was put into possession of item No.1 of the suit property by the Government of Karnataka. 4. It is further contended by the plaintiff that plaintiff is running educational institution over the suit property to an extent of 36 guntas and it is assessed to revenue in khatha 2159 and assessment No.202. 5. It is also contended that Government of Karnataka sanctioned the item No.1 of the suit property vide letter dated 04.11.2004 bearing No.Sum/LoEe/50/BMSS/2003 by the Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Public Works Department. 6. Thereafter, plaintiff is in uninterrupted peaceful possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 plaintiff also developed the suit properties and put up a compound wall. It is further contended that vacant space is used by the students as play ground. 7. It is further contention of the plaintiff that a suit in O.S. No.565/2010 was filed by the defendants and said suit was being contested. The Bharath Gold Mines Limited, later on withdrew the said suit as not pressed on 27.10.2014. 8. It is further contended that defendants without there being any right, title or interest over the suit item Nos.1 and 2, started interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties which resulted in filing the suit. 9. On receipt of suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court and resisted the suit by denying the plaint averments. 10. It is further contended that item No.2 is in the ownership of defendant No.1-Company. It is further contended that Employment Exchange Building measuring 38 guntas is the State Government property which is marked as N7 which - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 resembles item No.1 of the suit property. In the said building, plaintiff is running Alagappa University and no right, title and interest is possessed in item No.2 of the suit property and sought for dismissal of the suit in respect of item No.2 of the suit property. 11. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and by a considered judgment dated 04.03.2023, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 of the suit property. 12. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal in R.A.No.80/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, KGF. 13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the factual and legal aspects of the matter, by the judgment dated 13.02.2024, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 of the suit property. 14. While so dismissing the appeal, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, not only re-appreciated the material evidence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 on record, but also supplemented additional reasons for upholding the judgment of dismissal of the suit. 15. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the First Appellate Court upholding the order of dismissal is at paragraphs 29 to 35. Same are culled out hereunder for ready reference: “29. As already observed above, the defendants have produced copies of eviction notice and eviction order as per Ex.D4 and Ex.D8 respectively which reveal that an order of eviction has been passed against the plaintiff for eviction of its possession from item No.2 property. Thus, these documents show that the defendants had already initiated eviction proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 1971 and obtained an order of eviction therein against the plaintiff for recovery possession of item No.2 property from it. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the defendants are acting forcibly against the plaintiffs and without due process of law but they are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over item No.2 property by following due process of law. As such, the plaintiff is required to challenge the above said eviction order by preferring an appeal before the district court under the provision of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 but instead of filing the appeal, the plaintiff has come up - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 with this suit which is not maintainable in law and barred under Section 15 of the Act. 30. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a ruling reported in 2000(6) Kar.LJ 442 in the case of THE HORTICULTURE MARKETING & PRODUCERS PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BANGALORE VS. THE COMPETENT OFFICER & SECRETARY, KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFS, BANGALORE & OTHERS wherein, it was held as under: "(B) KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UN-AUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974, Sections 4, 5 and 10 Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Unauthorized occupation-Eviction proceedings initiated by competent officer by issue of show-cause notice to occupant after forming opinion that premises in question is public premises and occupation thereof by occupant is unauthorized-Writ petition by occupant challenging show-cause notice on ground that premises being not public premises, competent officer is incompetent to issue show-cause notice and also on ground that occupant has since acquired title to premises by adverse possession-Correctness of opinion formed by competent officer and question of title, held, cannot be gone into and decided in writ petition-Statute provides for remedy of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 appeal to District Judge against order of competent officer, and it is open to party to raise question of title before appellate authority." 31. It is also relevant to refer to another ruling reported in 1998(5) Kar.LJ 221 in the case of N. MOHAMMAD VS. THE MANDAL PANCHAYAT, KALGHATGI wherein, it was held as under: "(B) KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UN-AUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1974, Sections 16-Unauthorized occupant -Temporary injunction against eviction of-Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court-Continuation of occupation by person after expiry of period of licence to occupy. is to be held unauthorized occupation-civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, in favour of unauthorized occupant against whom eviction proceeding has been instituted." 32. The above rulings are perfectly applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, the present suit with respect to item No.2 property is barred under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The claim of the plaintiff that it is in lawful possession of item No.2 property is not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 acceptable because, it is in unauthorized occupation of the said property. 33. Further, in view of the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the BGML company by the government thereby selling the entire land Sy.No.249 of Oorgaum Village, the title of plaintiff is also doubtful and that the said sale deed of the defendants company has created cloud on the title of plaintiff over item No.2 property and therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiff to seek declaration of its title over the said property and that it cannot maintain its suit for bare injunction. 34. All the above aspects are properly considered by the trial court in the impugned judgment thereby granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff with respect to item No.1 property and refusing the injunction with respect to item No.2 property and as such, there is no illegality into the judgment of the trial court. 35. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I hold that the trial court has not committed any error in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove its possession over item No.2 of the suit properties and that the plaintiff has also failed to prove unlawful interference with respect to item No.2 property. I also hold that the trial court has also not erred in properly appreciating oral and documentary evidence placed on record and in dismissing the suit of plaintiff in part and refusing to grant injunction in its - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 favour with respect to item No.2 property. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the NEGATIVE.” 16. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal, on the following grounds:  It is submitted that the dismissal of the original suit of this appellant for the relief of permanent injunction by the courts below on the finding that the plaintiff is blindly seeking the relief of injunction over the item No. 2 of the suit schedule property without having any valid documents and possession, is bad in law.  It is submitted that the courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with respect to the item No. 2 of the suit schedule property without appreciating the documents produced by the parties to the suit which are marked and placed on records and hence the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below with respect to item No. 2 is to be set aside.  It is Submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff is an institution and in the actual and physical possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the filing of the suit and hence dismissal of the suit for injection is bad in law.  It is submitted that both the Courts below failed to find that the Ex.P2 is a survey sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Bangarpet Taluk in presence of the supervisor of the office of Tahasildar, Bangarapet - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 which is very clear that the plaintiff institution has been in the possession of the land measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy. No. 249 of the Oorgaum Village, Bangarpet Taluk for the last 25 years and the item No. 2 of the schedule property is the part of it,  It is submitted that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the Ex.P-5 to Ex.P10 issued by the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited which is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff is in the possession of the Suit schedule properties which is also pleaded in the plaint.  It is submitted that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that the document at Ex.D4 dated 15.10.2016 which is issued to the plaintiff subsequent to filing of O.S No.394/2016 under section 4(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants Act, 1971, is sufficient to say that the plaintiff was in the possession of suit schedule property item No. 2.  It is submitted that the Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D6 were created by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff is in the suit schedule properties but the courts below dismissed the suit with respect to Item No.2 which is against law and baseless.  It is submitted that both the Courts below failed to appreciate while dismissing the suit with respect to the item No. 2 that the plaintiff was prima facie in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 possession of the suit schedule properties and balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable loss is caused to the plaintiff by defendants as the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and running the educational institution by investing huge money in constructing the compound wall.  The Courts below have failed to see that the plaintiff has been running the Environmental Research institute and human care Society in the suit schedule property which is sanctioned by the Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Public Works Department.  The appellate Court failed to appreciate that the trial Court allowed the I.A No. 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 394/2016 on finding that the plaintiff/petitioner has prima facie case.  Both the Courts below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff obtained the power through the transformer installed in the schedule property in the year 2012 by paying necessary deposit and has been using the power supply for the last 10 years.  Both the Courts below failed to note that the defendants filed O.S. No.565/2010 claiming the suit schedule property and the said suit was withdrawn by the defendants/ respondent on 27.10.2014 even after contested by the plaintiff seriously.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 17. Following substantial questions of law arises in the present appeal: “i) Whether the Courts below are justified in denying the relief of permanent injunction by dismissing the suit in O.S.394/2016 with respect to Item No. 2 without appreciating that the plaintiff/appellant is in the possession of the suit property as on the date of suit ignoring the documents on record? ii) Whether both the Courts below justified in denying the relief of injunction by dismissing the suit in O.S. 394/2016 without appreciating the evidence of the parties either documentary or oral? iii) Whether both the Courts below justified in denying the permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property item No.2 without appreciating the Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P5 to Ex.P10, Ex.P- 16, and Ex.D4?” 18. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo, Sri Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant contended that title to item No.1 of the suit property is by virtue of the letter issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka. The plaintiff is in possession of both items of the property which is depicted in the survey sketch - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 clearly. Therefore, he is entitled to maintain the suit for seeking an order of injunction and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 19. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served with notice and remained absent. 20. This Court, perused the material on record, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant. 21. Admittedly, plaintiff is claiming right over the suit property by virtue of letter dated 04.11.2004 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of Karnataka. There is no dispute that the said property refers to item No.1 of the suit property. 22. Mere withdrawal of suit by defendant No.1 filed in O.S.No.565/2010 would not automatically confer the right for the plaintiff to claim lawful possession over the suit item No.2. 23. No documentary evidence is placed on record to establish that in respect of item No.2 also, plaintiff is the owner. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 24. Insofar as lawful possession adversely to the interest of defendant No.1, plaintiff wants to rely upon the survey sketch issued by the survey authorities. 25. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the revenue records or the survey sketch would not ipso facto confer any title to the property, especially when a contra title is propounded by the contesting defendant. 26. Taking note of the same, learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 of the suit property wherein defendant No.1 claims ownership by way of documentary evidence. 27. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the factual aspects and legality in the judgment of the Trial Court and rightly rejected the appeal of the plaintiff. 28. Taking note of the fact that title is only with respect of item No.1 of the suit property, plaintiff has failed to establish that he is in lawful possession over item No.2 of the suit property. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30989 RSA No. 666 of 2024 29. Hence, substantial questions of law raised in the appeal do not merit for further consideration. 30. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is meritless and dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76