- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2020 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVANNA S/O LATE SONTHANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SINDHUVALLY VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MALLAJAMMA W/O LATE MAHANTHAIAHNA PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,. 2. CHANDRA S/O LATE MAHANTHAIAHNA PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. GIRIJA D/O LATE MAHANTHAIAHNA PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SINDHVALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.523/2016 (OLD RSA NO.212/2015) ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.535/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.II CIVIL JUDGE, AT MYSURU.TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri. Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the appellant and None appears for the respondent. 2. Present appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the validity of judgement and decree passed in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 O.S. No.535/2010 conformed in R.A. No.523/2016 whereby suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction came to be dismissed. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') : SCHEDULE The landed property bearing Sy.No.6, measuring 0- 21 guntas, situated at Sindhuvalli Village, Mysuru Taluk, which is bounded on the: East by : Defendants' property West by : Land of Rajanayaka North by : Road South by : Water Course. 4. In the plaint, it is contended that father of the plaintiff by name Sontanayaka purchased the suit property from Javaranayaka S/o. Siddanayaka for valuable - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 consideration through a registered sale deed date 11.01.1972 and since then his father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as an absolute owner. After his demise, plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by transferring the revenue entries in his favour. 5. It is further contended that plaintiff raised coconut trees in suit property which are now more than 25 years old. Apart from coconut trees, there are other fruit bearing trees in the suit property. 6. It is also contended that to secure the suit property, fenced the same with barbed wire and defendants without any right, title and interest tried to disturb and removed the barbed wire fencing on 28.10.2010. 7. It is further contended that defendants have colluded with jurisdictional police and therefore suit for injunction was filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 9. Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants appeared and filed details written statement contending that defendants are the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.5/1 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. It is their ancestral properties. 10. There is a specific contention that there exists an open space which is abutting Sy.Nos.5 and 6 of Sindhuvalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and illegally plaintiff had occupied the said oni or the open space which was used by defendants for ingress and aggress to their lands and revenue proceedings were initiated in that regard and plaintiff first was directed to vacate the encroached government land. 11. Based on the rival contentions, learned Trial Judge framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 12. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court in R.A.No.523/2016. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the legal and factual aspects of the matter dismissed the appeal. 14. Being further aggrieved by same, plaintiff is before this Court in this second appeal on following grounds : The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are highly illegal besides being erroneous and liable to be set aside in limine. The trial court though rightly held that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of suit schedule property, but grossly erred in dismissing the suit seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. That though the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff on record clearly shows that suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property, but trial court travelled beyond the pleadings and evidence on record and erroneously held that the plaintiff by filing the suit for suit schedule property has made an attempt to get an order for obstructing the defendants in their enjoyment of the government oni/government pathway. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 That the trial court traveled beyond the pleadings and evidence on record and gave a findings to the effect that defendants are in their enjoyment of the government oni. Which clearly shows that the trial court gave finding on subject not pleaded in pleadings. The findings recorded by the courts below with regard existence of oni/government land is contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. The findings recorded by the trial court on Issue No.3 are inconsistent and irrelevant. The First Appellate court judgment is nothing but mechanical extraction of judgment of trial court and first appellate court failed to apprise the pleadings and evidence of the parties on record. There is no discussion with regard to the documentary evidence on record. 15. In the appeal, the following substantial questions of law are raised: "1. Whether trial court is correct in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction when the plaintiff's ownership and possession over the suit schedule property is undisputed and proved? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 2. Whether the first appellate court is correct in dismissing the application filed Under Order 41 Rule 27 R/W 151 CPC holding that the documents sought to produced will not further the case of the plaintiff in anyway, without examine those documents? 3. Whether the trial court is right in giving the finding to the effect that defendants are in the enjoyment of the government oni, though no relief is sought to that effect, and no court fee was paid for seeking such relief/declaration? 4. Whether the courts below are justified in giving the finding on facts which are not stated in the pleadings? 5. Whether the First Appellate court is correct in confirming the judgment of trial court without re- appreciate the evidence on record? 16. Sri. K. Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that the title of the suit property is admitted by the defendants. But existence of oni is disputed. Same has been set up to encroach upon the suit property which has not been properly appreciated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 by the both the Courts in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for injunction and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 17. Counsel for respondent is absent today. 18. This Court perused the material on record meticulously in the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the appellant. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, he has clearly admitted that there exists oni and defendants were using said 'sarkari oni' (strip of land belonging to Government) for ingress and eggress to their lands. 20. He failed to answer that there was no coconut trees in the suit property. Likewise, he failed to answer on what date the defendants tried to remove the fencing. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 21. He admits that there was revenue proceedings before the Tashildar in Revenue Miscellaneous No.182/2010-11. 22. It is also pertinent to note that in the said revenue proceedings, plaintiff was directed to place necessary records for his illegal occupation in respect of sarkari oni. But, plaintiff failed to do so and suffered an order that he had to immediately vacate the premises. 23. When he failed to do so, criminal proceedings also initiated against the plaintiff. 24. In the teeth of such aspects of the matter, the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property cannot be treated as a lawful possession, which is a first and prime parameter to grant an order of injunction. 25. Since he failed to establish the said aspect of the matter dismissal of suit by the Trial Court and First - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34206 RSA No. 763 of 2020 Appellate Court is just and proper which requires no interference in the second appeal. 26. Accordingly, following Order: ORDER (i) Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are meritless (ii) Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 ct:SG