- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYARAMU, S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. YADUNANDAN .N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M RAMU, S/O M G MYLARSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1319, KRISHNAMURTHY PURAM, MYSURU-570 004. 2. SRI SIDDARAJU, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018. 3. SRI DASHARATHA, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018. 4. SRI ANDANI, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ .R, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED IN RA NO. 146/2021 (OLD RA NO.169/2020) ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2020 PASSED IN OS.No.336/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for appellant and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 3. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff in the suit while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, contended that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property i.e. site carved out in Sy.No. 89/2 having Junger No.535/A Hootagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. 4. The plaintiff had purchased the said property on 02.05.2013 from Sri.Nandakumar. Sri.NandaKumar has purchased the same from his previous vendor Sri.K. Doreswamy. Sri.K. Doreswamy had purchased the same from one Smt.Sakamma, who is the first defendant. Khata of the suit schedule property has been registered in Koorgalli Grama Panchayath and now stands in the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff has been enjoying the said property without any interference. The first defendant was the owner of Sy.No.89/2 situated at Hootagalli Village and she had formed a residential layout in the said land and converted the said land into residential sites and sold the said sites to several persons including vendor of the plaintiff. Second plaintiff is the registered power of attorney holder of the first defendant. Third defendant is the wife of the defendant No.2. Further, defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 Nos.4 to 8 are the children of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 who have no right, title or possession over the suit sale property, on 30.04.2007 came near the suit schedule property at 11.00 a.m. and started to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff resisted the illegal act of the defendant and immediately plaintiff approached the local police and lodged the complaint. The police refused to receive the complaint and advised to go to Civil Court and also defendants have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, for not interfering with their peaceful possession. Even though site owners have put up a construction that defendants have no right, title or possession of the suit schedule property, with a sole intention to have illegal claim, they tried to interfere with possession of the property and hence filed the suit for permanent injunction. 5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants appeared and defendant No.6 has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The very claim of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the owner of the property is denied. The property of defendant No.6 is an agricultural land - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 and there cannot be any khatha or there can be record in respect of the said land. By suppressing the true facts, the present suit is filed. The plaintiff is not having any right to own the suit schedule property and plaintiff is also not at all in possession of the property. 6. During the pendency of the suit, written statement was also got amended by inserting para No.4A, wherein it is contented that originally late Thimmegowda and his brother Bolarigowda and Venkategowda constituted a joint Hindu family and property in Sy.No.89/2 measuring 3 acres 23 guntas of Hootagalli village had been purchased by Bolarigowda who was the kartha of the joint family. Apart from this property, family is owning several other properties also. Three brothers orally divided the properties of the joint family in the oral partition. The land bearing Sy.No.89/2 was fallen to the share of Thimmegowda. The first defendant is the wife of Thimmegowda. They have no issues and defendant No.3 is a fostered daughter and she was the biological daughter of Venkategowda. Thimmegowda has performed the marriage of third defendant with the second defendant i.e, Siddegowda. On 23.05.1958, Thimmegowda, being the absolute owner of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 Sy.No.89/2, executed a settlement deed and as per the settlement deed, he created a life estate in favour of first defendant. After lifetime of first defendant, the said land should be vested with defendant Nos.2 and 3 and she has no right to alienate the said property. The revenue records got changed in the name of first defendant, taking advantage of the ignorance and illiteracy of defendant No.1, the children of Bolarigowda and Venkategowda made manipulation in the revenue records and entered their name by showing the fictitious partition, in respect of the said land. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed suit for declaration and injunction against Bolarigowda and Thimmegowda in OS No.1236/2006. After the contest, suit was decreed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3, by IV Additional civil judge Mysore, declaring that first defendant has life estate holder of the said property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the vested remainders and prayed to dismiss the suit. The trial court considering the same framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The trial Court having considered the materials available on record, particularly documents placed before the court, i.e. Exs.P1 to P21, demand register extract, tax paid receipts, OS No.533/2006, order sheet, compromise - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 decree and also the decree and electricity bills and receipts for having paid, land holding property, residential certificate, photographs, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has established the possession. Though defendants filed the document at Exs.D1 to D6 and examined one witness as DW1, comes to the conclusion that if any defendants having any right over the property, they have to take back the possession under due process of law. While answering Issue No.1, in detail discussed the same in paragraph No.20 and granted the relief of permanent injunction. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in RA No.146/2021 and the appellate court also having reassessed the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence, formulated the points as below, 1. Whether findings of the Trial Court that plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and defendants interfered with his peaceful possession is erroneous and interference by this court is needed ? 2. Whether respondent No.1 is permitted to adduce further evidence of PW.1 by reopening the case? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 3. What order ?? The first Appellate Court considering all the above points for consideration and on re-appreciation of the material available on record, answered all the points in ‘negative’ and came to the conclusion that the documents which have been placed before the court, particularly admission on the part of DW1, wherein he categorically admitted with regard to the execution of document and also filing of suit in OS No.533/2006, in respect of M.N.Jayaprakash and present defendants Nos.1 to 8, from the said document, it is clear that the suit schedule property in OS No.533/2006 as per Ex.P6 is the property bearing No.24 and 25, property No. 522 of Janger No.536 carved out in Sy.No.89/2 situated at Hootagalli village, wherein they have compromised the same. Description of the schedule in O.S.No.533/2006 referred above probabilise the case of the plaintiff that revenue sites were carved out in Sy.No.89/2. In Ex.P.5 compromise decree between M.N. Jayaprakash and present defendants, they have admitted that plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It was further agreed that plaint schedule - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 property is identified from the sketch filed by the plaintiffs by virtue of which, it is understood by one and all that the plaintiffs have been provided with Site bearing nos.24 and 25. Further, from Ex.P.4 order sheet, it is clear that the suit was filed by M.N. Jayaprakash for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment and compromise was also entered under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. In detail discussion was made, having considered the documents, as well as the admission on the part of DW1, i.e., at Ex.P.17 photographs also got confronted. He has clearly admitted that in Sy.No.89/2 they have constructed a house, wherein there are three shops in ground floor and in first floor there is a house and Ex.P17 is a photograph of that house. Further admitted that with reference to the shops and house seen in Ex.P17, Koorgalli Grama Panchayath has given 11-B certificate. But his ignorance with reference to the issuance of 11-B certificate by Koorgalli Grama Panchayat and all these factors were also reassessed by the appellate court and comes to the conclusion that the very admission on the part of DW1 is clear that PW1 had purchased the property under unregistered sale deed. Later, he came in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 possession of the property and number was given by Koorgalli Grama Panchayat and he has been paying Tax to the Grama Panchayath. Even though documents at Exs.P2, P3, P7 to P14 and P19 to P21 are subsequent documents of the filing of the suit, but oral evidence and documentary evidence establishes the possession and hence confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this court. 8. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this court is that the very reasoning of the trial Court is erroneous and ought not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction. Apart from that, when the unregistered sale deed dated 02.05.2003 is alleged by the plaintiff and the same is also not placed before the court and the said document is a concocted document and mainly the trial court and appellate court relies upon the evidence of PW1 and when there is no any documentary proof with regard to the title is concerned, the court ought not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, this court has to frame substantive question of law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the counsel for respondents and also perusal on reasoning given by the trial Court as well as appellate court, taken note of mainly the documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiff which establishes the possession of the plaintiff and also the other adjacent owner of the property who had filed the suit in OS No.533/2006 at Ex.P4 to P6, is very clear that in a similar set of facts, when the suit was filed, the very defendants have entered into a compromise and wherein it is also admitted with regard to the formation of sites in the said land and when such material is relied upon by the trial court and the appellate court, in detail discussion was made and the same is with regard to the establishing the possession of the plaintiff and possession is also established that particularly Ex.P17, when it was confronted to DW1, he categorically admitted the existence of building including the shop premises. 10. Such being the case, I do not find any ground, to interfere with findings of the trial Court and appellate Court regarding possession is concerned. The trial court also made an observation in the order that if any right, appellants are - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43594 RSA No. 670 of 2024 having, they have to take the possession under due process of law. Accordingly, this regular second appeal is hereby dismissed as no substantive question of law involves having granted the relief within it's scope. Learned counsel also during the course of argument would submit that a liberty may be given to take the possession under due process of law and hence the said liberty is given. If any suit is filed seeking appropriate remedy, the trial Court shall not influence with the reasoning given by this Court. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43