- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1463 OF 2019 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 2. SRI. K.C. CHANDRAPPA S/O CHINNA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SRI. YOGENDRA S/O CHINNA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KESLUR VILALGE, KADTHUR POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-577 424. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NIREEKSHA D.J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAKSHITH JOIS Y.P, ADVOCATE) AND: B.T. GANESH S/O THIMMAPPA NAIK @ THIMMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 R/AT KESLUR, KADTHUR POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. PIN CODE:577 424. ALSO AT KUDUMAKKI BUILDING, KOPPA ROAD, BALEHONNUR, NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE-577 112. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHWATH C.M, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.19/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT THIRTHAHALLI ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.78/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 CAV JUDGMENT 1. This is defendants' second appeal. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of 25 guntas of areca garden in Sy.No.112 of Keslur Village, Agumbe Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamogga District (for brevity, "the suit schedule property"). He purchased the suit schedule property from one U.V.Poorvika through a registered Sale Deed dated 03.10.2011 and thereafter, revenue records were mutated in his name. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants, who hail from same village, started to interfere with the possession and attempted to trespass the suit schedule property and the plaintiff tried to restrain them, but the defendants posed a threat and therefore without there being any other alternative remedy, the plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of permanent injunction. 4. Defendants, having contested the matter by filing written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 they are in possession of 10 guntas of wet land in Sy.No.267 (Old Sy.No.146) and father of the defendants purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 03.02.1963 from his brother one Puttanaika. After the demise of his father, the revenue entries stood in the name of the mother of defendants and since then, the defendants were in possession of the said 10 guntas. The defendants' land has been converted into areca garden and also three bogi trees exit in the said land, which the plaintiff tried to cut and remove, however, defendants stalled the same and further, the defendants' land is not adjacent to the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff has filed the suit only to knock off the said trees and to gain unauthorized profit. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the boundaries as pleaded, especially that Sy.No.267 is situated on the western side/ adjacent to the suit schedule property. 6. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, has observed that Ex.P8 - sketch - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 clearly shows that the defendants' property exists adjacent to the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has proved the location, boundaries and identity of the suit schedule property. On other hand, the defendants had not produced any relevant document to prove that there exits a forest land between the suit schedule property and their land and also the defendants had not produced any documentary evidence to show the location of their 10 guntas of land. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal by granting permanent injunction. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 8. I have heard Smt. Nireeksha. D.J, learned counsel for Sri. Rakshith Jois Y.P, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri. Ashwath C.M, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 9. The primary contention of the defendants/appellants is that the First Appellate Court has grossly erred in allowing the appeal by granting permanent injunction to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. According to him, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 defendants' father purchased 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.267 (Old Sy.No.146) vide Sale Deed dated 03.02.1963 and the same is bounded on east by Sannamma's garden land, west by remaining land of Puttanaika, south by Sy.No.146 and north by halla. In the Sale Deed of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Ex.P5, no where it is mentioned that the defendants' property is situated adjacent to the suit schedule property. The boundaries in Ex.P5 and in the suit schedule totally differs from each other, as for the first time, in the suit schedule, Sy.No.267 was included. The said aspect clearly goes to prove that the property of the plaintiff's and defendants' situated independently. According to the learned counsel, the Ex.P7-Tippani does not show the existence of Sy.No.267 adjacent to the land of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court only relying on Ex.P8 - sketch allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit presuming that the defendants' property is situated adjacent to the suit schedule property. However, Ex.P8 - sketch does not bear the signature of the author and the same is not supported with the survey report. 10. The learned counsel further contended that Ex.D9 - RTC produced by the defendants shows the existence of three bogi - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 trees, whereas the RTC produced by the plaintiff does not show any trees in the suit schedule property. Additionally, either in the plaint or in the written statement, both parties have not stated that their properties are situated adjacent to each other. DW.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that he has no claim whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule property. In such circumstance, the First Appellate Court has grossly erred in decreeing the suit only relying on Ex.P8. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the plaintiff submits that, the First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated Ex.P8-sketch, which clearly reveals that the defendants' property is situated on the western side of the suit schedule property. Further, before conducting the said survey, the notice was issued to the adjacent land owners, though the same was not produced before the Court. Further, DW.1 in his cross examination has categorically admitted that in the north and south side of the property, the forest land is situated. The said aspect clearly shows that the defendants made an attempt to encroach the suit schedule property. Further, DW.1 himself admitted that he has no claim in respect of the suit schedule property. As such, the First - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the said portion of the evidence and decreed the suit by observing that if injunction is granted, no harm will cause to the defendants. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, so also to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. 13. This Court while admitting the appeal has framed the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the First Appellate Court justified in granting the injunction? ii) Whether the First Appellate Court justified in decreeing the suit when the alleged interference is not proved by the plaintiff? 14. On careful perusal of the plaint, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendants are residents of the same village, but they have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and unnecessarily interfering with the same. It is pertinent to observe that no where in the plaint it is stated that the suit schedule property is situated adjacent to the defendants' property and also about the nature of interference - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 by the defendants. Further the plaintiff claims right over the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.P5-Sale Deed. On perusal of Ex.P5, the boundary of the suit schedule property is mentioned as - East by Sy.No.146 and 111, West by Sy.No.113 and 146, North by Sy.No.113 and South by Sy.No.146 and even Ex.P7-Tippani also depicts the same boundary to the plaintiff's property. Strangely the suit schedule depicts that on the western side of the plaintiff's property, Sy.No.267 is situated. Except the said inclusion of survey number in the plaint, nowhere it is forth coming that the defendants' property is situated adjacent to the plaintiff's property. As a matter of fact, the defendants also have not stated in their written statement that their property is situated adjacent to the plaintiff's property. Additionally, the RTC produced by plaintiff as per Ex.P9 and the RTC produced by the defendant Ex.D2 also reveals different survey number\hissa number i.e., Ex.P9 Sy.No.112 and in Ex.D2-Sy.No.267/2 and it is mentioned in Column No.7 of Ex.D2 that there were 3 bogi trees in the property of the defendants. In such circumstance, it is clearly proved that the suit schedule property and the defendants' property are situated separately and the plaintiff failed to prove that defendants property situated adjacent to the suit schedule - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 property. Further Dw.1 admitted in his cross examination that forest land is situated adjacent to his land. Hence it is clear that in between plaintiffs and defendants property there exists forest land. This aspect of the matter has rightly been appreciated by the Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court only relying on Ex.P8-the sketch held that the defendants' property situated adjacent to the plaintiff's property. As rightly contended by the defendants, Ex.P8 does not bear the signature of the author and the same is not supported with survey report. In such circumstance, the First Appellate Court is not justified for its conclusion relying on Ex.P8. 15. Further, the First Appellate Court has also erred while appreciating the evidence of DW.1 in right perspective. DW.1 admitted in his evidence that he has no claim whatsoever in respect of the plaintiff's property and his property situated separately from the suit schedule property. But the First Appellate Court in view of the admission of the defendants came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved the title, possession and interference of the defendants to the suit schedule property. The said admission of the defendants - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49721 RSA No. 1463 of 2019 misread by the First Appellate Court. On the other hand it has to be interpreted that the plaintiffs property and defendants property are situated separately and defendants have no claim in respect of the suit schedule property. Since the plaintiff failed to prove the primary aspect that the defendants property situated adjacent to his property and there is a interference by the defendants to the suit schedule property, I am of the considered view that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable both on facts and law and the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. 16. In that view of the matter, I answer both the substantial question of law in the "negative". The impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, consequently the Trial Court judgment affirmed and suit is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1