- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1788 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. S.A. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O KACHAINKATE VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: KORALAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KORALAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.10.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.88/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.4.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.225/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SHIVAMOGGA. Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2013, passed in R.A.No.88/2012 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a permanent injunction, contending that the suit schedule property measuring 3 acres 8 guntas, situated at Lakkinakoppa village was being enjoyed by him and his ancestors without authorization for more than 50 years by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 paying T.T. fine to the Government. It is stated that the plaintiff has submitted Form No.53 to the Land Grant Committee, which is pending for consideration. The respondent illegally passed a resolution to form a site, an agricultural land. The Panchayath tried to obstruct the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a permanent injunction and pray to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or in fact. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession to the suit property measuring 3 acres and 8 guntas. It is contended that the plaintiff and his family members have presented an application to the Tahsildar to obtain a grant of the suit schedule property which is denied. It is contended that the suit land is the Gramathana, measuring 4 acres, called - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 Majare Grama as per the sketch and it is the centre of 5 villages. It is contended that the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant decided to convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural land. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendant as alleged in the plaint? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for? 4) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, the plaintiff was examined himself as PW.1, examined 2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and marked 2 documents as Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, the Secretary of the defendant was examined as DW.1, and marked 7 documents as Exs.D1 to D7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No. 4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs and the defendant, their members, workers, supporters, agents etc., were restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3.4. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.225/2011, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.88/2012 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 1) Whether the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved his possession as on the date of the suit and decreeing the suit for the relief of permanent injunction? 2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree needs to be interfered with this appellate Court? 3) What order? 3.5. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.225/2011 dated 17.04.2012 was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed in R.A.No.88/2012, has filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 13.06.2016, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law : 1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court with regard to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 possession by relying upon Ex.P1 T.T.Notice and RTC-Ex.P2 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3? 2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in relying upon the revenue entries in view of the provision under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act? 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff, and the learned counsel for the defendant. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from more than 60 years. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property unauthorizedly and applied for regularisation, which is pending before the Land Grant Committee. The defendant has passed the resolution to form a site in the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. He submits that to prove the possession of the suit schedule property, he has examined 2 witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, who have deposed that the plaintiff is in possession and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He submits that the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit. The First Appellate Court, without reassessing the entire evidence on record, has come to the wrong conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. He submits that before filing of the suit, the plaintiff had not issued a statutory notice to the defendant as per Section 295(2) of the Panchayath Raj Act. He also submits that although the plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has not mentioned in which survey number suit schedule property falls. He submits that the plaintiff has not shown the survey number of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff has not produced the RTC of Sy.No.41, but has produced the RTC - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 of Sy.No.49, which do not pertain to the suit schedule property. He also submits that the defendant has denied the plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule property. The suit for a bare injunction is not maintainable. The First Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. 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 repetition of facts. 9. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and contended that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and, to prove possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P1 i.e., notice issued by the Tahsilder. From the perusal of Ex.P1, it does not disclose the survey number or boundary of the property and Ex.P2 is the RTC extract of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 land bearing Sy.No.49 which discloses the name of the plaintiff in column No.9 and 12 of the said property. The plaintiff also examined 2 witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the Secretary of the defendant was examined as DW.1, who reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 10. From the perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff, it does not disclose that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not produced any record to demonstrate the plaintiff’s name was entered in the revenue records. The defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule property, and has filed Form No.53, which is pending before the Land Grant Committee. The First Appellate Court, considering the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 entire evidence on record, has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and also the plaintiff has not produced any records to establish that the suit schedule property falls in Sy.No.49. Further, from the perusal of the schedule shown in the plaint, it is mentioned as Khanesumari land measuring to the extent of 3 acres 8 guntas, situated at Lakkinakoppa Village, Shivamogga Taluk, bounded by east - land of Y.M.Manjunath S/o Veerappa, west - land of Nagappa S/o Thopanna, north – land of Ravi and south – plaintiff’s property bearing Sy.No.41. The defendant has disputed the existence of the suit schedule property. There is a dispute regarding the location of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction. It is settled law that, in a suit for a bare injunction, the Court is required to consider whether the plaintiff has proved possession of the suit schedule property and alleged interference. Admittedly, the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has also relied on Ex.P1 and P2 and has rightly passed the impugned judgment. The plaintiff’s name is entered in the revenue records as per Ex.P2. The plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule property falls in Sy.No.49. Hence, the question of drawing presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not arise. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any errors in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 09.10.2013, passed in R.A.No.88/2012 by the learned II - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25879 RSA No. 1788 of 2013 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB CT: BHK