- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.407 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: JANNAPURA DEVALAYAGAL SAMITHI A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SREE MALLESWARA DEVASTHANA, MALLESWARA CIRCLE, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT J.V. VIRUPAKSHAIAH S/O LATE J.P. VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SECRETARY, M.B. PARASHURAMA, S/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SREE MARIYAMMAN DEVASTHANAM A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: VELLORE-SHED, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, K. KANNAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/O RAJAPPA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. 2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL CONCIL BHADRAVATHI. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. LOKANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03RD OCTOBER, 2016 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.57 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06TH MARCH, 2013 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.127 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BHADRAVATI. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 03rd October, 2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.57 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06th March, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.127 of 2011 on the file of the I - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a registered Society established for the purpose of maintenance and improvement of three temples namely Sri. Malleshwara Devastana, Sri. Antharaghattamma Devastana and Sri. Udusulamma Devastana situate at Jannapura, Bhadravathi. Sri. Udusulamma Temple is old temple and also known as Kariyamma Devi Temple. It is also stated that the main entrance of the temples is towards Eastern side and on the Southern side boundary, there is a small rock image which was being worshiped as Sri. Mariyamma Deity. It is further stated in the plaint that the president of the defendant No.1-Society requested the plaintiff-Society to provide a piece of land for the purpose of Sanctorum of Mariyamma Deity as per letter dated 01st November, 2001 and thereafter, requested for increasing extent of land. In this regard, the General Body of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 plaintiff-Society resolved to provide an extent of 25 x 41 feet to the defendant No.1-Society, subject to the condition that the defendant No.1 shall construct a compound wall for atleast 10 feet height surrounding the extent of land to be given to the defendant No.1-Soceity in view of the fact that the devotees of Sri. Mariyamma Deity have to involve in the animal sacrifice, since the sacrifice of the animal is prohibitive in respect of the devotees of Sri. Udusulamma Deity. Thereafter, the defendant No.1-Soceity failed to construct the compound wall and same has caused inconvenience to the devotees of Sri. Udusulamma Deity by way of open sacrifice of animals and as such, plaintiff- Society put-up compound wall in the plaint schedule premises. It is further stated that, the aforesaid temples are situate in the land belonging to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant and since the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff's Temple, the plaintiff-Society filed Original Suit No.127 of 2011, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 4. Upon service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement, disputing the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and took-up a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 contention that Sri. Mariyamma Temple is existing from the time immemorial and the defendants never interfered with the suit schedule property of the plaintiff-Society and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The defendant No.2-City Municipal Council, Bhadravathi filed separate written statement stating that the plaint schedule property belongs to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant and therefore the suit is not maintainable. 6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated the issues for its consideration. 7. In order to prove their case, plaintiff examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 20 documents as Exhibits P1 to P20. On the other hand, defendants examined one witness as DW1 and marked 5 documents as Exhibits D1 to D5. 8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 06th March, 2013, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Society. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-Society preferred Regular Appeal 57 of 2013 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 03rd October, 2016, dismissed the appeal. Bing aggrieved by the same, plaintiff-Society preferred the present appeal. 9. This Court, by order dated 10th February, 2020 formulated the following Substantial Question of Law: "In a suit for bare injunction (based on possession by the first defendant), when it was found by the trial Court and Appellate Court that the first defendant had sought for permission to utilize the portion of the land in possession of the plaintiff and when the possession of the land by the plaintiff was not disputed by the first defendant in his written statement, whether the trial Court and the appellate Court could have dismissed the suit for injunction on the ground legal right of the plaintiff over the property was not proved." 10. Heard Sri. Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri. R. Lokanatha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 11. Sri. Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to the admission made by the DW1 with regard to the possession - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 of the schedule property by the plaintiff-Society and contended that, both Courts below have committed an error by not considering the revenue records which is standing in the name of the plaintiff-Society in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, both the courts have wrongly rejected the claim made by the plaintiff-Society with regard to possession of the suit schedule property despite, the plaint schedule property is belonged to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 13. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the original records. It is forthcoming from the records that the suit property is situated at Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant, Bhadravathi and there are three temples namely, Sri. Malleshwara Devastana, Sri. Antharaghattamma Devastana and Sri. Udusulamma Devastana. On the other hand, another temple namely Sri. Mariyamma Temple is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 situated towards Southern side of the boundary of the plaint schedule property. The dispute is with regard to boundaries between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to the admission made by DW1, the existence of Sri. Udusulamma Temple is shown in the Village Map produced at Exhibit P11. The entire case of the plaintiff- Society revolves around the rough sketch of suit schedule property produced at Exhibit P1. In that view of the matter, since the land in question is belonged to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant and neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 are the owners of the suit schedule property, taking into consideration the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order passed by the respondent No.2 herein in C.C. No.10/2008-09, I am of the view that the contention raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that, in order to consider the case for granting relief of permanent injunction, the settled possession of the parties has to be considered. On careful examination of the averments made out in the plaint and the evidence of PW1, I am of the view - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31347 RSA NO.407 OF 2017 that, the ingredients for granting relief of permanent injunction has not been made out by the plaintiff by establishing the possession of the entire suit property on the sole ground that the plaintiff itself admits in the plaint about parting with the portion of the land as per their General Body resolution dated 03rd November, 2001 to provide an extent of 25 x 41 feet to the defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence on record and dismissed the suit as the plaintiff-Society has failed to prove the possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the substantial question of law framed by this Court favours the defendants and there is no perversity in the judgment and decree by both the Courts below. In the result, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK