- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40373 RSA No. 938 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI P M MAHALINGAPPA, S/O LATE MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O KODIHALLI VILLAGE, BHADARAVATHI TALUK, PIN - 577301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M DEVENDRAPPA, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O KODIHALLI VILLAGE, ARABILACHI POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED IN RA.NO.10/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 385/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40373 RSA No. 938 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is against the concurrent finding in a suit for bare injunction. The suit is decreed and appeal is dismissed. Hence, the defendant is in Second Appeal. 2. The suit is filed in respect of property bearing Sy.No.89/1 of Kodihalli Village, Bhadravathi Taluk to the extent of 10 guntas. 3. The defendant who contested the suit raised a contention that in addition to 10 guntas, plaintiff is in possession of 2.5 guntas belonging to the defendant. The defendant took a stand that the plaintiff is in possession of 2.5 guntas as encroacher of defendant's property. 4. The plaintiff contended that though 10 guntas was granted to the plaintiff in Sy.No.89/1 referred to above, the revenue officials have delivered 2.5 guntas more than what is stated in the grant certificate. The Trial Court has not accepted the contention relating to the delivery of possession of additional 2.5 guntas. First Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40373 RSA No. 938 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the decree passed by the Trial Court would also cover 2.5 guntas belonging to the plaintiff, as such, the suit could not have been decreed. 6. This Court is of the view that the decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of the suit property which is described in the schedule as Sy.No.89/1 measuring 10 guntas and not any other additional extent. 7. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. 8. However, if the appellant's stand is that plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation, it is for the appellant to seek appropriate remedy as advised in law. If such suit is filed, the defendants in the said suit are entitled to raise such defence as advised in law. In the event of any such suit being filed, the Court shall hear and decide the case on its merits. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the claim of the defendant over said 2.5 guntas land. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40373 RSA No. 938 of 2024 9. With these observations, appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19