- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 878 OF 2013 (INJ-) BETWEEN: SMT ZAHEERUNNISA DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT. NAZEEM UNNISA D/O LATE KAHDER KAHN ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANTS 3 & 4 2. SMT. NAYEEM UNNISA SINCE DEAD BY LRS ALREADY ON RECOD AS APPELLANTS 3 & 4 3. SRI. SALEEM AHMED KHAN S/O LATE KHADER KHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. TASLEEM UNNISA D/O LATE KHADER KHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 APPELLANTS 3 & 4 ARE R/AT NO.423, II CROSS, GOWRIPET KOLAR-563101 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K., ADV. FOR SRI. T N VISWANATHA, ADV. & SRI. T.N.RAMESH, ADV.) AND: 1. SIR ANWAR KHAN SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI AKTAR UNNISA W/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SRI RIZWAN KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SRI IRFAN KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. SRI REHAN KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. SRI AYUB KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6. SRI TIPPU KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 7. SRI YUSUB KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 8. SRI IMRAN KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YERS 9. SMT. MUSRATH KHANUM D/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 10. SMT. IBRATH KHANUM D/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 11. SRI IRFAN KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 12. SRI RAHIM KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 13. SRI YOUSUF KHAN S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT No.424, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 II CROSS, GOWRIPET, KOLAR-563101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A.SUDHINDRA, ADV. & SRI HARSHAVARDHAN BHAVATHARNI, ADV., FOR R1, R3, R5 TO R10, V/O/D 03.01.2024 & 05.12.2025 APPEAL IS ABATED AS AGAINST R2 & R4 RESPECTIVELY, R11 & R13 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED, V/O/D/ 2002.2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 28.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.6/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR C/C PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 30.11.2001 PASSED IN OS.NO.358/1998 THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) KOLAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.6/2002 by the learned Fast Track Court- III, Kolar. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and restraining - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 the defendants from obstructing the repair work to be effected to the eastern wall belongs to the plaintiffs. 3.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Smt.Zaheerunnisa was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property including the building. It was purchased from one Chandrashekaraiah vide sale deed dated 18.08.1958. Thereafter, the house was constructed. It is contended that the defendants are the owners of the property situated in the eastern side of the suit property, and they have no manner right, title, or interest over the suit property. Anwar Khan made an attempt to interfere with the plaintiffs’ lawful possession of the suit schedule property, and caused damage to the eastern wall belongs to the plaintiffs. Thus, the first plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in O.S.No.71/95, and the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.09.1977 decreed the suit by passing an order of compensation. It is further contended that the defendants are again trying to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 property by removing the stone slabs fixed by them. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the plaintiffs were the neighbours and wanted to grab the property of the defendants. The plaintiffs are litigant minded people and they are not living with family in the healthy atmosphere. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. The stone slabs were erected within the property belongs to them and the said stone slabs are belonged to the defendants. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 3.4. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 3.5. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, first defendant himself examined as DW.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.D1 to D10. 3.6. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 30.11.2001. 3.7. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.358/1998, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.6/2002 on the file learned Fast Track Court-III, Kolar. The First Appellate Court allowed the said appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2005. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.6/2002, preferred a second appeal in RSA.No.412/2006. This Court vide order dated 24.06.2010 allowed the appeal by sitting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 Court and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court to rehear the matter afresh and accordingly to pass a judgment, on the ground that the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff was not brought on record, before passing the impugned judgment. 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, wherein the First Appellate Court dismissed and set aside the judgment of the trial Court insofar as granting and restraining the defendants temporarily from obstructing repair work to be effected to the eastern wall belongs to the plaintiffs. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs have produced the records to show that the stone slabs are owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and committed an error in setting aside the part of the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said stone slabs belongs to the plaintiffs. To establish that the stone slabs belongs to the plaintiffs, except the oral evidence the plaintiffs have not produced any records to show that the stone slabs belongs to the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court has rightly recorded a finding in para 20, which reads as follows: "20. The plaintiffs are required to prove that the said stone slabs are installed by them and they - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 are the owners of the same. Except oral evidence of the parties, there is nothing on record to show that as to who has installed the said stone slabs. Some documents are produced by the defendants before the trial Court. The trial Court has referred to Ex.D1, wherein there is a mention about the stone slabs. Ex.DE6 is also a document in this regard." 8. The defendants produced the documents i.e., Exs.D1 to D6 to show that the stone slabs belongs to the defendants. It is settled law that, the plaintiffs, who approaches the Court must establish their case independently and cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendants. Admittedly, the First Appellate Court considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and any substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52764 RSA No. 878 of 2013 ii. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.6/2002, dated 28.02.2013, is hereby confirmed. iii. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB