- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15311 RSA No. 100200 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100200 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVAMURTHAPPA BETAGERI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVARAHUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. 2. SMT. BASAVANNEWWA W/O. SHIVAMURTHAPPA BETAGERI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DEVARAHUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. 3. SHIVAYOGI S/O. SHIVAMURTHAPPA BETAGERI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DEVARAHUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE) AND. SIDDAPPA S/O. FAKIRAPPA HALIYAL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVARAHUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2017 IN R.A.NO.103/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2015 IN O.S.NO.38/2007 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II, DHARWAD AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2015 IN O.S.NO.38/2007 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II COURT, DHARWAD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.11.12 10:43:02 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15311 RSA No. 100200 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in an earlier round of litigation arising out of O.S.No.414/1994, permanent injunction was granted against the plaintiffs holding that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property. But however, the claim for declaration that the defendant is the owner of the property was rejected. The finding in the said suit, attained finality by virtue of the judgment in RSA No.5618/2009. Thereafter, the present appellant/plaintiff approached the Trial Court seeking a relief of perpetual injunction and a mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the defendant. 3. Both the Courts below have rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the original grant order/Hakku Patra issued by virtue of the resolution of Grama Panchayat - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15311 RSA No. 100200 of 2017 dated 03.05.1985 do not depict the boundaries of the property. It was held that the converse of the finding that the defendant is not entitled for a declaration of title would not result in the appellant herein is declared as the owner of the property. 4. This Court finds that simply because in earlier round of litigation, it was held that the defendant was not the owner of the property, it would not entitle the plaintiff to claim title over the suit schedule property unless he establishes his title. Obviously, the defendant has constructed a structure over the suit schedule property and he is running a Hotel. The grant order/resolution of the Panchayat does not depict the boundaries and therefore, both the Courts below have held that the appellant is not entitled for the injunction. This Court finds no lacunae in the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. If at all the appellant claims any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property on the basis of the grant order, he is at liberty to seek a declaration of title over the suit schedule property before appropriate forum. In that view of the matter, the appeal is devoid of any merits. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15311 RSA No. 100200 of 2017 5. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. All contentions on question of law and facts as contented by the appellant are kept open. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE RKM Ct:pa List No.. 1 Sl No.. 22