- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2013 (INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.NAGASETTY S/O DASASETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O DASASETTY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 3. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O NAGASETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 4. SRI DEVARAJA S/O NAGASETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. SRI MANJA @ MANJUNATHA S/O NAGASETTY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, SRI SHIVARAJA S/O DASASETTY, DEAD BY HIS LRS, 6(A). SRI. HARISHA S/O SHIVARAJA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 6(B). SRI SANTHOSHA S/O SHIVARAJA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 7. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O SHIVARAJA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT THONDALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.RAMASETTY S/O SHANIVARASETTY, (ON 12.04.2019 DEAD BY HIS LRS) 1(A). SMT. SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE RAMASHETTY R/AT THONDAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105. 1(B). SMT. LOKESHWARI, AGED BOUT 51 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHETTY, D/O LATE RAMASHETTY, R/AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE, KAABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 1(C). SMT. SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O DODDA SHTTY, D/O LATE RAMASHETTY, R/AT B.R. KAVAL VILLAGE, HANGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105. 1(D). SMT. CHANDRAMMA, AGED BOUT 47 YEARS, W/O RAGAVENDRA D/O LATE RAMASHETTY, RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HONBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105. 1(E). SRI. BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE RAMASHETTY R/AT THONDAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.96/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, HUNSUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree 26.10.2013, passed in R.A.No.1/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants 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 defendants for the relief of a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was purchased by him from his vendor, Sri T.S.Dasasetty and their sons, on 06.12.1978 for valuable consideration. On the basis of the registered sale deed, the katha was transferred to the name of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff is in absolute - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a lawful owner. The plaintiff is paying the tax to the concerned department. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and are trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants have not given any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit schedule property was acquired by the defendants from their ancestors, and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 in the suit schedule property. It is denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 100 years, and they have acquired the title by way of adverse possession. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of this suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference of the defendants over the suit property? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled relief as sought for? 4) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined 3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4 and 7 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both side, and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, and issue No.4 as per the final order and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.10.2008. 3.4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.96/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.1/2009 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff/appellant proves that as he is in lawful possession of the schedule property as the absolute owner there was interference from the side of the defendants? 2) Whether the interference in the impugned judgment is called for on account of it being capricious, perverse and illegal? 3) What order? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 3.5. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.96/2007 was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with cost and by means of permanent injunction, the defendants or their authorized persons were restrained from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3.6. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.1/2009, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 04.09.2024, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law : 1) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for perpetual - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 injunction without seeking the relief of declaration, when the defendants have disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court? 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have seriously disputed the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendants are in peaceful possession over the suit schedule property for more than 12 years and they have perfected their title by adverse possession. He submits that the mere suit for perpetual injunction without seeking a relief of declaration of title, is not maintainable. 7. To buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCCHIREDDY (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. He - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 submits that there is a serious dispute about the title and the said aspect was not properly reappreciated by the first Appellate Court and committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. He submits that the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned judgments, and prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 10. Reg. Substantial questions of law No.1 and 2: Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked and hence, discussed together to avoid the repetition of facts. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 11. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from one T.S.Dasasetty under a registered sale deed in 1978 and the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records and the plaintiff paid the tax of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, and he has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents, marked as Ex.P1 is the original registered sale deed, Ex.P2 is the mutation extract, which discloses that based on Ex.P1, the name of the plaintiff was mutated as per the order dated 23.07.2004, Exs.P3 and P4 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.P5 is the copy of the complaint wherein the plaintiff has lodged a complaint against the defendants on 24.05.2007, Ex.P6 is the assessment extract of the suit schedule property which discloses the name of the plaintiff as a owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, Ex.P7 is the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Ex.P8 is the registered sale deed wherein the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 plaintiff had acquired the suit property under Ex.D8, Ex.P9 is the original mortgage deed, Exs.P10 to P17 are the photographs, Ex.P18 is the statement of Narasimhaiah in O.S.No.66/2004. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 it was denied that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. 12. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief, and he deposed that the defendants had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 100 years and perfected their title by adverse possession. Further, to prove the defence, the defendants have produced the photographs marked as Exs.D1 and D2 are the photos, Ex.D3 is the Himbaraha, Exs.D4 and D5 are the NCR, Ex.D6 is the letter issued by the Gram Panchayath, Ex.D7 is the electoral list. Further, the defendants also examined 3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4. They have deposed that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 schedule property, and they have denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. 13. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute that the plaintiff had acquired the property under Exs.P1 and P8 i.e., the registered sale deeds executed by T.S.Dasasetty. 14. From the perusal of the recitals of Exs.P1 and P8, it is clear that the vendor of the plaintiff had delivered the possession of the property purchased by the plaintiff under Exs.P1 and P8. The defendants did not challenge the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff as per Exs.P1 and P8. The defendants also did not challenge the mutation order as per Ex.P2. The records produced by the plaintiff disclose that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. 15. The defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and claimed the title by adverse possession. By pleading adverse - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 possession, the defendants are indirectly admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When the defendants indirectly admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, hence, the question of seeking relief of declaration of title would not arise. The first Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the plaintiff has proved the possession over the suit schedule property and also by producing Ex.P5 i.e., a copy of the complaint wherein the plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendants alleging that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit schedule property, proceed the interference by the defendants. 16. Learned counsel for the defendant placed a reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCCHIREDDY (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in AIR (2008) 4 SCC 594. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 17. Admittedly, in the instant case, the defendants have pleaded in the written statement that they have acquired the title by way of adverse possession. That itself is sufficient to hold that the defendants have admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When the defendants have admitted the title of the suit schedule property, the question of seeking relief of declaration of title would not arise. The suit filed by the plaintiff for a perpetual injunction is maintainable. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is just and proper. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts, and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013 ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 26.10.2013, passed in R.A.No.1/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur is hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As’ if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB CT: BHK