- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI S R BASAVARAJ SINCE DIED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 1(A). SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE S.R.BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, BYATHA POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560089 1(B). SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PRASHANTHNAGAR 22ND WARD DEVANAHALLI- 562110 1(C). SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.B. S/O LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT 1089, 15TH B. CROSS, LIG, 2ND STAGE, AGARAVAL EYE HOSPITAL B. SECTOR, YELAHANAKA 560064 1(D). SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SHIVANNA C/O SHIVANADA SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT DIBBUR, KAKOLU POST, Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 HESARAGATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA 560089 1(E). SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR B. S/O LATE BASAVARAJ S.R. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, BYTHA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK- 560089 1(F). SMT. BAGYAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA @ MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT SONNE BYCHANAHALLI, BEGUR POST, SULIBELE POST, HOSAKOTE-562114 1(G). SMT. PRABHAVATHI, W/O SOMANARADYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT PATALAPPA BADAVANE, 8TH CROSS, ADDIGANAHALLI RAJANUKUNTE POST YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE -560089 1(H) SRI. SHIVANADA S.B. S/O LATE BASAVARAJU S.R. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DIBBUR, KAKOLU POST, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE -560089 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 AND: SMT VENKΑΤΑΜΜΑ SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 1. SMT. AKKAJAMMA W/O MUNITHHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT BYRAPPA, AREKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 088. 2. SRI CHIKKEGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, R./AT SONNENAHALLI, BYATHA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560088 3. SRI K PRAKASH S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SONNENAHALLI, BYATHA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGAOLRU NORTH TALUK-560088 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C RAVIKUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA FILED IS UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.12.2021 PASSED IN RA.No. 14/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION SJUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2015 PASSED IN OS No. 893/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGLAURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Kumbar Vasant Fakeerappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.C.Ravikumar, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.893/2009 is the appellant. Said Basavaraj claims that he is the owner of the house property situated in Kaneshumari No.124 measuring East to West 45 feet and North to South 27 or 28 feet. 3. Based on said claim, he resisted the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property. 4. For the sake of convenience and certainty, suit ‘B’ schedule property in the plaint is culled out hereunder: All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.148/1, which is portion of the A schedule property measuring East to West 37 feet, North to South towards Eastern side 48 feet, towards Western side 5 feet, towards Southern side from East to West 37 feet, consisting Eucaluptus trees and absetestos sheet roofed small room measuring sheet roofed small room measuring 12 x 12 feet, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 situated at Sonnenahalli village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk bounded on: East by – Grama Thana and Gori Niveshana West by – Road North by – A schedule property South by – Road 5. Suit on contest came to be decreed as prayed for and appeal came to be filed by the said Basavaraj in RA No.14/2021. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 09.12.2021, dismissed the appeal of the defendant and confirmed the decree of the suit. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court on following grounds:  The Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court confirming the trial court judgment is perverse, capricious and against to the well settled law of position and requires to be set aside.  The trial court and first appellate court completely failed to appreciate ocular evidence tendered by the appellant inconsonance with the documentary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 evidence in order to prove the case, but, wrongly passed verdict which requires interference by this Hon'ble court.  The trial court and first appellate court have completely wrong in accepting the version and contentions of the defendant and rendered the decree which is oppose to law.  The verdicts rendered by both the courts are opposed to law and also on facts, much less probabilities of the case. The courts were completely wrong in applying its judicial mind in understanding the facts of the case and utterly failed to analyze and appreciate the fact resulted in serious miscarriage test of law.  As could be seen from the verdicts of both courts, it can be culled out that, both the courts were failed to appreciate that, statement given by PW- 1 in exhibit P7 that the portion marked in pencil is not part and parcel of the Sy No.148/1. Therefore, Ex.P11 which is prepared by the advocate is on the instructions of Plaintiff No.02, which is portion marked at Ex.P7 is in addition to the entire extent of land bearing Sy No.18/1 and therefore, said admission has been properly appreciated by both the courts, which requires deeper scrutiny at the hands of this Hon'ble court.  Both courts were failed to appreciate that, plaintiff is claiming suit schedule B property is part and parcel of A schedule property but in the boundaries it is mentioned that, at northern side A schedule property. The very schedule mentioned in the plaint itself shows that, schedule B property is not part and parcel of S schedule property. Hence decreeing the suit granting permanent injunction is not proper. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022  Both the courts were failed to appreciate the fact, in the documents produced by the plaintiff divulges that, his property measuring 01 Acre 01 guntas but he is claiming 01 Acre 05 guntas, further on the eastern side there exists Gori Niveshana and when such being the position, hence it can be said that, with malafide intention present suit is filed, hence, there is need of interference by this Hon'ble court.  Both the courts were completely relied upon oral testimony of the DW-1-saying no objection, if suit decreed to extent of 01 Acre 01 gunta. The said statement should be construed only to the extent of said portion, further concurrence does not confer jurisdiction to decree the suit, when patently it is impermissible, as such there is need of interference by this Hon'ble court.  Both the courts were failed in assessing the documents produced by the defendant/Appellant and taxes being paid by the Appellant in respect of that property, which prima facie suffice to hold that, Appellant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.  Both the courts were completely failed in appreciating the oral testimony coupled with. documentary evidence tendered by parties, non- appreciation of evidence in proper and perceptive manner resulted in miscarriage of justice.  Both the courts were completely erred in decreeing the suit of the Respondent for the relief of permanent injunction, when plaintiff is not in physical possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of schedule property.  Both the courts have not appreciated the actual case of the Defendant/Appellant and appreciated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 and caused great injustice in dictating the verdict, which requires to be set aside.  Viewing from any angle, the findings given by both the courts are perverse, capricious and illegal and thus, same are liable to be set aside. 8. In the appeal, following substantial questions of law have been raised: 1. Whether both the Courts were justified in coming to the conclusion that, when schedule ‘B; property is part and parcel of schedule property ‘A’ property as Ex.P7, as it is interlined? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of decree of permanent injunction against schedule property when he has not established his possession to show that, it is a part of schedule ‘A’ property? 9. During the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court, original plaintiff – Venkatamma died and her legal representatives were brought on record. Before this Court, original defendant – Basavaraj died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 10. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents specifically contended that there is no claim by the original plaintiff or the legal representatives of the original plaintiff with regard to the house property situated in Kaneshumari No.124 referred to supra. 12. In fact he maintained that there exists a Gori Niveshana in between the house property belonging to Basavaraj measuring East to West 45 feet and North to South 27 or 28 feet and the suit ‘B’ schedule property. 13. In other words, when there is no claim at all with regard to the house property, majority of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum on behalf of the appellants would get into insignificance. 14. Suffice to say that the appeal can be disposed by answering the substantial questions of law accordingly by observing that the decree of the injunction obtained by the original plaintiff and now enjoyed by legal - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 representatives of the original plaintiff who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 is in exclusion to the house property belonging to Basavaraj and now being enjoyed by his legal representatives situated in Kaneshumari No.124 referred to supra. 15. If such an observation is made, ends of justice would be met and interest of the appellants would also be satisfied is the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. 16. Accordingly, appeal needs to be allowed as under: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Order of injunction obtained by the original plaintiff – Venkatamma now being enjoyed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the suit ‘B’ schedule property is maintained and based on such an order of injunction, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31995 RSA No. 317 of 2022 respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not claim any right, title or interest over the house property of the original defendant which is now being enjoyed by the legal representatives situated in Kaneshumari No.124 situated in Sonnenahalli village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West 45 feet and North to South 27 or 28 feet. iii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45