- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SRI JAYANNA S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI RAMESHA S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE R/O MUCHAVEERANAHALLI HAGALAWADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 222 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K SANNASIDDAPPA S/O KADAPPA @ KADASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS R/O KUNTARAMANHALLI HAGALAWADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK - 572 222 TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRIKANTH.R.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.27/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 280/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUBBI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Srikanth R.M., learned counsel appearing on behalf Sri. G.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The defendants are the appellants in the second appeal challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.280/2015, confirmed in R.A.No.25/2021, whereby suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction came to be decreed with costs. 3. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the following property, hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property: “Land bearing Survey number 19/2P measuring 04 Acres including karab out of which 3 acre 34 guntas situated at Rs.3.93 paisa, situated at Muchaveeranahalli, hagalavadi Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, bounded by : - East : Land of S.No.18, Now Road and S.No.18 West : Land of S.No.37, Now Krishnamurthy North : Land of Block No.1, Now land of Doddamallayya and Lakshmamma S.No.19/3 P South : land of Manchaladoregadi 3.2 The plaintiff contended that the suit property originally was a government land and it was granted in favour of the plaintiff in LNDCR (NC) 207/1970-71 on 30.07.1971 and from the date of grant, plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by mutating the revenue entries and by paying taxes. 3.3 It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendants being utter strangers started interfering with the suit property and therefore, a suit came to be filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 4. Upon receipt of the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed statement denying the plaint averments. 5. It is further contended by defendants Nos.2 and 3 that they are the children of defendant No.1 and land in Sy.No.19/P3 measuring 3 acres situated in Muchaveeranahalli was granted in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 namely Narasaiah on 23.01.1982 and after his death, defendants have succeeded to the said property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and as such, claim of the plaintiff is to be rejected and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The learned Trial Judge after raising the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property by virtue of the grant order referred to supra. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.27/2021. 8. Learned First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 appreciation of the material on record factually and legally, dismissed the appeal of the defendants confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellants are before this court in this second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: “GROUNDS The Judgment and Decree of the Trial court & Appellate court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The plaintiff has not proved the possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule property; the property has not been duly identified and there is no clarity in the identification of the property. Hence, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial court & 1st Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. The 1st Appellate court & the Trial Court have failed to appreciate the evidence of DW-1 & evidence of independent witness, examined as DW-2 and has further failed to appreciate the Exhibit D-1 to D-10, marked by the Defendant. The Trial court & 1st Appellate court have failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has marked only RTCs has Ex P-1 to P-17 and certified copies of the grant certificate as Ex P-18. The plaintiff has not marked the survey sketch, other survey documents, the documents regarding fixation of boundary, copy of Durasti etc. In - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 the absence of clear identification of the property and its boundary, the decree passed by the Trial court and the 1st Appellate court is unjustifiable. The Trial court & the 1st Appellate court have failed to appreciate the admission made by PW-1 during the course of cross-examination. The schedule to the plaint clearly shows that towards the North Sy. No.19/P3 belongs to Lakshmamma is situated. When such being the case, unless there is survey and fixation of boundary is proved by the plaintiff, the decree cannot be granted. In the absence of best evidence, the Judgement and Decree is liable to be set aside. The courts below have failed to appreciate that the Respondents / Plaintiffs have not given an independent evidence or produced any documents to disprove the contention of the defendant; moreover the plaintiff has to prove the case independently. The 1st Appellate court has wrongly re-appreciated the evidence on record. The 1st Appellate court has come to an erroneous conclusion to believe the case of the plaintiff. The court below has further committed an error in dismissing the appeal on erroneous findings. The Trial court and the 1st Appellate court have wrongly appreciated the Exhibit D-2 to D-4 ie., the Judgement, decree, Deposition in OS No.365/2014. In the schedule of OS No.369/2014, the plaintiff is not the adjacent land owner. In view of the finding in OS No.369/2014, the plaintiff has to give sound and justifiable evidence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 to prove the title, possession, boundary and identification of the property. Viewed from any angle the judgment and decree of the courts below are suffering from legal infirmity and propriety. The appellants crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge such other additional grounds at the time of arguments.” “SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1) Whether Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is justifiable in the absence of the evidence of the independent witness to prove the identification and possession of the Plaintiff over the SS property...? 2) Whether the Trial Court & First Appellate court are justified in decreeing the suit, even though the plaintiff has not produced any survey document, to prove the identification, possession, boundary and Title over the property...? 3) Whether the Trial court & 1st Appellate court are justified in decreeing the suit, even though, the boundary to the Plaint shows that towards North there is Survey No.19/3P belongs to Smt. Lakshmamma and the schedule in the Decree of OS 369/2014 does not shows that the plaintiff is the adjacent land owner...? 4) Whether the Judgement and Decree of the 1st Appellate court are justified on the basis of Ex P-1 to P-17, which are only RTCs and Ex P-18, the certified copy of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 the Grant certificate, in the absence of the grant register and the evidence of the author of the document, when the defendants have denied the Title and possession and when there is a decree in favour of the defendants in OS No.369/2014...? 5) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial court & 1st Appellate Court are otherwise justifiable under the facts and circumstances of the case?” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and contended that in the case on hand, plaintiff’s grant order is not in dispute. So also, the grant order in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not in dispute. 11. He further contended that by virtue of the grant order, defendants are in possession from the year 1982 and it is the plaintiff, who are not in possession of the property, with an avariciousness tried to occupy the land of the defendants and therefore there is a serious dispute as to the identity of the property, which has been ignored by both the Courts while granting the decree and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid Substantial Questions of Law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 12. Per contra, Sri. Srikanth, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. G.S. Prasana Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned judgment. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, all that the appellants are trying to put forth before this Court is that they are also having a right in respect of granted land in the year 1982 in favour of the husband of defendant No.1, Narasaiah. 15. It is their case that after the death of Narasaiah, they are in enjoyment of the suit property. In fact, they have already filed a suit in OS No.369/2014 for injunction in respect of their property and therefore, the present injunction suit should have been dismissed. Pertinently, the suit schedule property is a granted land in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1971. 16. The grant in favour of Narasaiah was in the year 1982. Whether the granted land in Sy.No.19/P3 and 19/2P are one and the same land is not a matter that has to be looked - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 into in the suit for bare injunction, unless there is a prayer for relief of declaration by either of the parties. 17. Since the subject matter of both the grants are two different properties, the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, which is in Sy.No.19/2P. 18. Whereas, the defendants are claiming right, title and interest in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.19/P3 of Muchaveeranahalli. 19. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, it is always open for the defendants to seek a declaration in respect of their granted land in Sy.No.19/P3. If any such suit is filed and if there is a finding with regard to the identity of the land, the injunction order granted by the Trial Court in the present suit, confirmed by the First Appellate Court would be subservient to such result of the comprehensive suit to be filed by the defendants. 20. With that observation, this court does not find any merit in the present appeal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34446 RSA No. 494 of 2022 21. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39