- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1345 OF 2009 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNAPPA GOWDA S/O ANNAYYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O NADUMUTTTU HOUSE SULLIA KASABA VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK, D.K. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(A) SMT. SARASWATHI .K W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED 74 YEARS 1(B) NIVEDITA K.K W/O DAMODARA GOWDA AND D/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED 49 YEARS 1(C) NIRUPAMA K.K D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED 47 YEARS 1(D) TILAKA K W/O BALAKRISHNA P V & D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 1(E) POORNIMA K.K W/O RAGHAVENDRA & S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 1(F) DEVARAJA K.K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED 41 YEARS NOS.1(A) TO (F) ALL ARE RESIDING AT 7/211, KUDPAJE HOUSE KAYARTHODI, SULLIA KASABA SULLIA TALUK, D.K. - 574 239 (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.03.2025) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI:R MANOJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: HARISH BAHNDARY .T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B. VASUDEVA BHAT S/O SUBRAYA BHAT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT BAPPAKODI HOUSE MUNI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TQ. DK. 2. SRI. KESHAVA MOORTHI S/O ANANTHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT KALLAPALLI HOUSE PANATHADI VILLAGE HOSADURGA TQ, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 3. SRI. B.C. VASUDEVA BHAT S/O RAMA BHAT AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT KUNTIKANA HOUSE AMARAMUDNOOR VILLAGE SULLIA TQ, DK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: RAMACHANDRA .B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (AB) SRI. SUBBA RAO & CO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB) R2 & 3 - DISMISSED AS ABATED V/O DT. 20.06.2025) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2009 PASSED IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 R.A.NO.31/2006 ON THE FILE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC., PUTTUR D.K, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.113/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SULLIA, D.K. THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff in OS No.113 of 2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sulia, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is impugning the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 dismissing the suit for permanent injunction and the judgment dated 20.06.2009 passed in RA No.31 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Puttur (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS No.113 of 2003 against defendant No.1 being the owner of schedule property and defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the purchasers of the same from defendant No.1 seeking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property described as property bearing Sy.No.316/1A measuring 1.80 acres situated at Sulia, within Sulia Town Panchayat limits, with the boundaries mentioned therein. 4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was in possession and occupation of the schedule property as tenant under defendant No.1 and he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, he is entitled for permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 sold the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Therefore, he filed the suit against the defendants. 5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the written statement denying the contention taken by the plaintiff and asserted that the schedule property is not an agricultural land and it was they who are in possession and enjoyment of the property under the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. 6. The Trial Court on the basis of materials on record, framed the following issues: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 "1. Whether the plaintiff proves his actual possession and enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves illegal interference of defendants as alleged? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. What decree or order?" 7. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 and 2 got marked Exs.P1 to P16 in support of his contention. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D16. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his possession over the schedule property and he is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA No.31 of 2006. The First Appellate court on re- appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 9. As per order dated 19.03.2010, the following substantial questions of law were raised for consideration by this Court: "(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiff had not established his possession over the suit property, since it was not the subject matter of grant of occupancy rights and whether the Courts below were justified in holding that in the face of Ex.P.5 - Chalageni chit indicating that the suit schedule property was also leased to the appellant, whether it could be denied that he was not in possession? (ii) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that occupancy rights were not granted in respect of the same, even though it was shown to be punja land, which could not be the subject matter of grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act? (iii) Whether the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was not in possession of the suit property, on the basis of an observation made in the suit filed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 defendant in O.S.No.17/1984, which was ultimately dismissed?" 10. Heard Sri R Manoj, learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent. No representation. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for the respondents have not addressed their arguments. Hence, their arguments are taken as NIL. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 11. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was the tenant in respect of the schedule property which is an agricultural land and thus he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Defendant No.2 and 3 who are said to have purchased the property from defendant No.1 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, he is entitled for permanent injunction. 12. Ex.P5 is the copy of chalageni chit. It is for the period of one year. As per this document, the plaintiff is required to surrender the property on or before 12.04.1947. Even according to the learned counsel for the appellants, even though occupancy rights was claimed in respect of the schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 property, their claim was rejected by the Tribunal and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 13. Ex.D1 is the application field by the plaintiff before the Tribunal. Ex.D2 is the order of the Land Tribunal and Ex.D3 is the Form No.10, which are in respect of the other properties owned by defendant No.1 and the plaintiff was cultivating the same. These documents disclose that defendant No.1 submitted no objection for conferring occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiff in respect of those properties and accordingly, occupancy rights was granted. 14. Admittedly, defendant No.1 sold the schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under the registered sale deed dated 06.01.1993 produced as per Ex.P9. When admittedly, claim of the plaintiff was rejected by the Tribunal, defendant No.1 has owned the property and sold the same in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Plaintiff cannot contend that he is still having right and he is in possession of the same. 15. Both oral and documentary evidence led by the parties disclose that it was defendant No.1 who was in possession of the property which was within Sulia Town - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40131 RSA No. 1345 of 2009 Municipal limits and he sold it in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs as sought. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. 16. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2