- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V.R.NARASARAMAPPA S/O RAJANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA,. D/O LATE V.R.NARASARAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 1(a)(i) SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI EGI, D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNI AVALAPPA, W/O E.LAKSHMINARASU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT No.26, 2ND CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, OPP: KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560095. 1(a)(ii) SRI. C.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNI AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT No.6, 2ND MAIN, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560030. 1(a)(iii) SMT. A.C.SARALA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNI AVALAPPA, W/O GOPALAKRISHNA N., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT No.26, 2ND CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 OPP: KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560095. 1(b) SMT. NARASAMMA, W/O LATE V.N.MUNINARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1(c) SRI V.M.RAMANJANEYALU, S/O LATE V.N.MUNINARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 1(d) SMT. V.M.YASHODAMMA, D/O LATE V.N.MUNINARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 1(e) SMT. LALITHAMMA, D/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 1(f) SRI. C.N.ASHWATHANARAYANAGOWDA, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 1(g) SMT. ANASYAMMA, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 1(h) SMT. TULASAMMA, D/O LATE V.R.NARASARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1(i) SMT. SARASWATHAMMA, D/O LATE V.R.NARASARAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 1(i)(i) SRI NADIMINTI NARASIMHAPPA, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O GUJJEVANDLAPALLI, THIMMAMPALLI, GULUR HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561207. 1(i)(ii) SRI. N.THIPPARAJU, S/O NADIMINTI NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O GUJJEVANDLAPALLI, THIMMAMPALLI, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561207. 1(i)(iii) SRI. N.YUVARAJU, S/O NADIMINTI NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O GUJJEVANDLAPALLI, THIMMAMPALLI, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561207. 1(j) SMT. ESHWARAMMA, D/O LATE V.R.NARASARAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 1(j)(i) SRI. P.NANJUNDAPPA, S/O PERUMALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT No.24, 3RD MAIN, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054. 1(j)(ii) SMT. N.TRIVENI, D/O P.NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT No.24, 1ST MAIN, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054. 1(j)(iii) SRI. N.NATESH, S/O. P.NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT No.38/1, 9TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, BRUNDAVANA NAGAR, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 1(k) SMT. V.N.VENUGOPALAPPA, S/O LATE V.R.NARASARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, APPELLANTS No.1(b) TO 1(h) AND 1(k) ARE R/O S.VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, SADALI HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.VARAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR A1(B-K) AND FOR ALL THE LRS OF A1(a) I.E., 1(a)(i) TO (iii), A1(i)(i) TO (iii), A1 J(i) TO (iii)) AND: 1. SRI. P.V.MANJUNATH, S/O R.VENKATAREDDY, AGE: MAJOR, R/O POOSAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SADALI HOBLI-562105, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 14.9.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.64/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SIDLAGHATTA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.6.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.120/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., AND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) (CONCURRENT CHARGE), SIDLAGHATTA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2012 passed in R.A.No.64/2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff acquired the suit lands through partition, and his father, Venkata Reddy, acquired the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 properties under a registered sale deed from Muniyappa and Muniraju, who are the son and grandson of one Ogappa. After purchase of the suit schedule properties, a sale deed was executed in favour of one Ramesh S/o Venkata Reddy, who is none other than his brother. A partition was effected between the plaintiff and his brother, and in the said partition, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiff. It is contended that Ogappa had acquired the said land by order dated 17.12.1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, granting occupancy rights in his favour, under the control of one Lakshminarasappa and Narasaramappa i.e., defendant. It is contended that a suit was filed in O.S.No.133/91 between the said Ogappa and the defendant. The said Ogappa’s son Muniyappa and grandson Muniraju sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff’s brother, Ramesh. It is contended that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. The defendant is trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 possession. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that he had purchased the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1964, and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Ogappa. He has filed a suit in O.S.No.133/1991, and the said suit was ended in a compromise. A compromise decree was drawn on 20.04.1991. It is contended that Lakshminarasappa and Ogappa have admitted the ownership and possession of the defendant, and they agreed not to interfere with the defendant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that subsequently Ogappa and his son Muniyappa filed a suit in O.S.No.70/1993 against the defendant herein for the relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn on 24.03.1998. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 properties. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. 1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule properties? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves alleged interference by the defendant over plaint schedule properties? 3) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and marked 27 documents as Exs.P1 to P27. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3 and marked 21 documents as Exs.D1 to D21. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 No.1 in the negative, issue No.2 does not survive for consideration, issue No.3 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.06.2007. 3.4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed in O.S.No.120/2004, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.64/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta. 3.5. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration. 1) Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff has proved the factum of possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court warrants interference? 3) What order? 3.6. The first appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 the negative, point No.2 in the affirmative, point No.3 as per the final order. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.64/2007, filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. K. Varaprasad, learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased defendant and Sri. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the defendant submits that Ogappa, i.e., vendor of the plaintiff’s brother, had admitted the ownership and possession of the defendant over the suit schedule properties. He also submits that the revenue records - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 since 1970-71 stood in the name of the defendant regarding the ownership and possession of the suit properties. He submits that the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment solely on the weakness of the defendant. He submits that the first Appellate Court went on recording its finding that the defendant has not produced any records to establish his possession over the suit schedule properties. He submits that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. It is for the plaintiff to establish his possession and interference. He submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession of the suit schedule properties. He also submits that subsequently, Ogappa and his grandson Muniraju, filed a suit in O.S.No.70/93 against the defendant seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and subsequently the said suit was withdrawn vide order dated 24.03.1998 as per Ex.D.18. He submits that the first Appellate Court without reappreciating the entire evidence on record, has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 Hence, on these grounds, he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that Ogappa was in possession of the suit schedule properties and Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in favour of Ogappa. Ogappa died leaving behind his legal heir Muniyappa. He submits that the legal representatives of Ogappa had sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff’s father, and the registered sale deed was executed in favour of Ramesh, the plaintiff’s brother. He submits that by virtue of the registered sale deed, possession was delivered by the vendor in favour of the vendee. He further submits that there was a partition effected between him and his brother Ramesh, and the said properties fell to the share - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. He submits that the plaintiff has produced the revenue records to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. He submits that the first Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court vide order dated 16.04.2014, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law. “Regard being had to the admitted compromise decree in O.S.No.133/1991 where under the appellant was recognized as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, that compromise decree when called in question in O.S.No.70/1993 by Ogappa and on his death, the legal representatives having come on record and suit dismissed as withdrawn by order dated - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 24.03.1998 Ex.D18, whether the lower appellate Court recorded perverse finding to reverse the finding of the trial Court?” 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. REG. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant contending that he had acquired the suit properties under a partition effected between him and his father and brother and it is also contended that the plaintiff’s father had purchased the suit schedule properties from Muniyappa and Muniraju, and they executed the registered sale deed, which is marked as Ex.P1. On the basis of registered sale deed, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records as owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. 10. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.1 that as the suit was filed in O.S.No.133/91, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 wherein Ogappa had admitted the ownership and possession of the defendant in the said suit. The said suggestion was denied and also denied that the suit in O.S.No.133/91 was ended in a compromise. 11. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and contended that by virtue of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.133/91, the defendant became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, a compromise petition was filed by the parties, wherein Ogappa admitted the ownership and possession of the defendant in the said suit. The defendant has also produced the documents i.e., Ex.D16 is the certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.133/91, Ex.D17 is the certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.133/91 and Ex.D18 is the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.70/93. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 12. From the perusal of the contents of the compromise petition, i.e., Ex.D16, wherein it discloses that Ogappa had admitted the ownership and possession of the defendant over the suit schedule properties. Further, the defendant also produced RTC extracts, which disclose that the name of the defendant is shown in the RTC extract as a owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties. The first Appellate Court, without considering the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.133/91 and the revenue records in regard to the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule properties, has reversed the judgment of the trial Court solely on the ground that the defendant has not produced any records. 13. It is well settled that in a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession of the plaintiff and interference over the suit schedule properties. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish his possession over the suit schedule properties. The First Appellate Court, overlooked the compromise decree - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 passed in O.S.No.133/91 and passed the impugned judgment recording a finding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Further, Ogappa and his grandson Muniraju jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.70/93 for the relief of a permanent injunction and the said suit was withdrawn by the Ogappa and his grandson Muniraju. Even the said aspect was not considered by the first Appellate Court. 14. Further, the plaintiff has not challenged the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.133/91. The first Appellate Court, without considering the entire evidence on record, has committed an error in reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court. The impugned judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is contrary to the records. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27220 RSA No. 4 of 2013 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 14.09.2012 passed in R.A.No.64/2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, is set aside. iii. The O.S.No.120/2004 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sidlaghatta, is restored. iv. No order as to the costs. v. A liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to agitate his grievance by filing a comprehensive suit, if so advised. vi. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending IAs, if any, disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4