- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30620 RSA No. 1195 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1195 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. K. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O SRI. MANJUNATHA , RESIDING AT NO.41/A, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU - 570 023. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE (VC) ) AND: 1. SRI. JAYRAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, 2. SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, 3. SMT. MANGALA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT No.12, IV CROSS, IV MAIN, JAYANAGARA, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30620 RSA No. 1195 of 2024 CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 014. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MILASH ARROL NORANHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED IN R.A.No.121/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2020 PASSED IN O.S.No.421/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo, which reads as under: “The respondents most respectfully submit that the present appeal may be disposed-off with the liberty to the parties to seeking appropriate relief/s before the Jurisdictional Civil Courts with respect to the Schedule Property forming the subject matter of the present appeal without prejudice to their rights in the same.” 2. Though the intention of the respondents is to take possession of suit property with due process of law, the contents of the memo are not properly worded. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30620 RSA No. 1195 of 2024 3. Since the suit is filed for the relief of bare injunction which is the subject matter to be considered in this appeal, taking note of the rival contentions of the parties and also taking note of the possession whether legal, lawful or otherwise of the appellant, any person who is in settled possession of the property cannot be disturbed from the said property without due process of law. As such, appeal can be disposed of by directing the respondents to take possession of the suit property in accordance with law which would meet the ends of justice. 4. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. However, the respondents are at liberty to take the possession of the property by initiating necessary proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR