- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: PUTTAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O THORAVALLI VILLAGE, KUDERU POST, KAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK- 571 301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADAPPA S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF THORAVALLI VILLAGE, KUDERU POST, KAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 571 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M P., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.7.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.2/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., NANJANGUD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.24/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., NANJANGUD. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is against the divergent finding in a suit for injunction. The plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.24/2008 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge at Nanjanagud, seeking permanent injunction was decreed. 2. The defendant filed an appeal in R.A.No.2/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nanjangud, the said appeal is allowed and consequently the suit is dismissed. 3. The suit property is a vacant site bearing site No.582C measuring 64 feet East to West and 15 feet North to South situated at Thoravalli Village, Dasanooru Gram Panchayath, Kowlande Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the property on the premise that the suit property is granted to the plaintiff by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 the Dasanooru Gram Panchayath. The plaintiff claims that suit property is adjacent to the Northern portion of the plaintiff's house and also two other vacant sites bearing Nos.582 and 582A. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the property for more than 20 years and katha is transferred in the name of the plaintiff by the Panchayath on 28.09.2005 after collecting the requisite tax, cess and the relevant fee. 5. The plaintiff alleges interference by the defendants and has filed a suit for permanent injunction. 6. The defendants contend that the property belonged to one Kempadevamma and she has entered into an agreement for sale with defendants on 26.12.1994. Thus defendants dispute the claim of the plaintiff relating to the grant made by the panchayath. The defendants contend that plaintiff is not the owner of the property and also dispute the plaintiff's claim that the property belonged to Panchayath. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 is also disputed that property is transferred by the Panchayath in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The defendants also contend that the entry in the assessment register in the name of the plaintiff is subsequently deleted. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has established his possession over the suit property, primarily relying on the assessment register at Ex.P1. The Trial Court has also concluded that the claim of the defendants that the property belonged to Kempadevamma is not established. 9. The Trial Court has referred to the evidence in the cross-examination to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the property by referring to the statement in the cross examination that “ಾಾ ಸತು ಾ ಯ ಮೆೆ ೇದಂೆ ಲಗಾೆ. .2ರರುವಂೆ ಸತುಗಳ ಲಗಾೆ ಎದ!ೆ ಸ” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 10. The defendants aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree filed First Appeal. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established lawful possession over the property. 11. The Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the grant and consequently failed to establish the possession over the property and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff's claim is not established. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that Ex.P1 the certified copy of the assessment extract pertaining to the suit property i.e., property bearing No.582(c) measuring 64 feet x 15 feet, would establish that the plaintiff Puttappa, S/o.Mahadevappa is the owner of the property and would also establish his possession. It is his further contention that the defendants contention that Kempadevamma is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 the owner of the property is not established by producing the materials. He would also submit that the agreement for sale in favour of the defendants is also not established and that being the possession, First Appellate Court could not have set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants would urge that the plaintiff's claim relating to grant by the panchayath is not established. Ownership of the panchayath is also not established and entry in the property extract in the name of the plaintiff was later deleted and this being the position, First Appellate Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is not the owner and rightly dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 15. It is noticed that the plaintiff has made a claim that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 grant made by the Panchayath. In the first place, the plaintiff has not produced any records to show that Panchayath is the owner of the property. Apart from that, no grant order is produced to hold that the property is granted by the Panchayath. 16. The only document, which is relied upon by the plaintiff is Ex.P1 i.e., the Assessment Extract pertaining to property bearing No.582C. It is well settled principle of law that mere entry in the property extract does not confer any right over the property. The entry in the property extract is to be made based on the right acquired. 17. The plaintiff claims that the property is granted to him by the Panchayath and he has paid the tax and other cess payable in respect of the grant. Grant order is not produced. More than anything else, no record is produced to show that Panchayath owned the property at any point of time. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 18. It is also noticed from Ex.D2, the property extract pertaining to the suit property produced by the defendants, which reveals that the name of the plaintiff is struck off. That extract at Ex.D2 is of the year 2009. 19. It is also noticed that no specific order is passed to strike off the name of the plaintiff from the assessment extract. Under these circumstances, both records cannot be relied upon to say as to who is the owner of the property. 20. In any case, the factual position would remain that there are no records to show that the property originally belonged to Panchayath, as contended by the plaintiff. There are no records to show that the property was granted to the plaintiff. At the same time, there are no records to show that the property bearing No.582C belonged to Kempadevamma. 21. Ex.D1 RTC for Sy.No.161 of Thoravalli Village is standing in the name of Kempadevamma to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35631 RSA No. 1293 of 2014 extent of 1 Acre 31 Guntas. In Column No.12, there is an endorsement stating that sites have been formed and they have been distributed. However, it is not clear as to whether property bearing No.582C is formed in Sy.No.161 or not. 22. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 23. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 ..