- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31436 RSA No. 670 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.670 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. NINGAPPA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. NAGARAJA S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. MANJAPPA S/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 4. RAJAPPA S/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. BHEEMAPPA S/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6. SURESHA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31436 RSA No. 670 of 2022 ALL ARE R/O KOTTANIGARA BEEDI HOLEHONNURU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT PINCODE-577 301. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI R GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: H. K. DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE SANNAKKI KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O KOTTANIGARA BEEDI HOLEHONNURU BHADRAVATHI TALUK PINCODE-577 301. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2022 PASSED IN RA No.29/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED IN O.S.No.81/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31436 RSA No. 670 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri R.Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.81/2014 are the appellants herein challenging the granting of decree of injunction in favour of respondent/plaintiff. Grant of injunction was challenged in R.A.No.29/2020 and the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants who are the defendants before the Trial Court. 3. While so doing, both the Courts have taken into consideration that the suit filed by the present appellants in O.S.No.400/1991 came to be dismissed and appeal filed in R.A.No. 69/2007 also came to be dismissed and further, case is now pending in RSA No.608/2012, before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, invited the attention of this Court to the following substantial questions of law: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31436 RSA No. 670 of 2022 (i) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the respondent has proved possession of the property in dispute and interference, while disbelieving the case of appellants, having regard to oral and documentary evidence on record? (ii) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding against the appellants 1 and 2 on the assumption that the judgments in the suit of appellant No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.400/1991 and R.A.No. 69/2007 at Ex.P.3, P.4 and Ex.P.8 had become final, when RSA No.608/2012 against the same are pending on the file of this Court? (iii) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding against appellants and in favour of respondent in view of evidence of DWs regarding appellants’ possession and enjoyment of the portions of the property and having regard to other facts and evidence on record? (iv) Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court is not vitiated for not raising necessary points for determination and not recording findings thereon by re- appreciating the evidence as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC? (v) Whether the appreciation of evidence and findings recorded by Courts below are perverse, arbitrary and contrary to materials on record resulting in mis-carriage of justice to appellants having regard to facts and circumstances of the case? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31436 RSA No. 670 of 2022 5. It is pertinent to note that the suit filed by the present appellants seeking declaration that they are the owners of the suit property which came to be dismissed is now pending in RSA No.608/2012. 6. Trial Court finding that respondent is in possession of the suit property is thus based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. 7. It is always open for the appellants to work out their remedy in the pending RSA No.608/2012. 8. Needless to emphasise that if the appellant succeed in RSA No.608/2012, the Order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court which is subject matter of present Second Appeal would be subservient to such a decree that would be passed on the title of the appellants. 9. With that observation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law do not merit for further consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31436 RSA No. 670 of 2022 10. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Appeal is hereby dismissed as meritless. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54