- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1568 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI C RANGAPPA S/O CHIKKAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A UNGRAGERE VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH & SRI. K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE KAPANIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT UNGRAGERE VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116 2. SMT CHANNAMMA W/O LATE KAPANIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT UNGRAGERE VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116 …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 14.10.2024 R1 & R2 SERVICE H/S) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 23.9.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.169/2014 (OLD R.A.No.32/2012) ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT & ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 1.8.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.1/2007 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ****** - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2014 passed in New RA No.169 of 2014 (Old RA No.32 of 2012) by the learned Fast Track Court at Channarayapatna (‘First Appellate Court’ for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court1. The appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was originally gomala land and the father of plaintiff No.1 was cultivating 1 Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Channarayapatna in OS No.1 of 2007 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 the same unauthorisedly to an extent of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.82 of Ungregere Village. Plaintiff No.1’s father filed an application before the Tahasildar for grant of the said land in his favour. The said application was allowed and the Tahasildar granted the said land in favour of the father of plaintiff No.1. The grant order was challenged by the defendant before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had set aside the grant order made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father. The same was challenged and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the grant made in favour of the father of plaintiff No.1. Accordingly, the father of plaintiff No.1, and after his death, the plaintiffs continued to be in poassession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is contented that the defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs and is trying to interfere with the plaintiffs’ legal possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying that plaintiff No.1's father was cultivating the suit land unauthorisedly. It was contented that the order of grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner has set aside the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference caused by the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for? 4. What order or decree? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 6. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1, examined 2 witnesses as PWs-2 and 3, and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The defendant examined himself as DW-1, examined 2 witnesses as DWs-2 and 3, and marked 8 documents as Exs.D1 to D8. 7. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.08.2012. 8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in OS No.1 of 2007, preferred an appeal in RA No.169 of 2014 (Old No.32 of 2012) on the file of the First Appellate Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1 Whether the Appellants made out that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No. 1/2007 by dismissing the suit is not sustainable in the eye of law, which is contrary to the facts, and circumstances of the case, it called for interference by this Court? 2 Whether the Appellants made out that the schedule property has been granted in favour of Kapanigowda, after his demise, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same? 3 Whether decreeing the suit of the Appellants is necessary? 4 What Order or decree? 10. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, and point No.4 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed; the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 11. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.169 of 2014, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 12. Notice was issued to the plaintiffs. Despite service of notice, the plaintiffs remained unrepresented before this Court. 13. Heard the arguments of Sri. K.N.Nitish, learned counsel for the defendant. 14. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that, the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and the same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the KAT2 and the KAT remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioenr. He submits that, during the pendency of this appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order passed by 2 Karnataka Appellate Tribunal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 the Assistant Commissioner. He submits that, the cancellation of grant order in favour of plaintiff No.1’s father has attained finality. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 15. This Court, vide order dated 30.10.2024, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether first appellate Court erred in granting decree of injunction to respondents on basis of alleged grant, which was pending consideration before Appellate Tribunal and has later being set-aside?” Reg. Substantial Question of Law: 16. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1. He has deposed that, plaintiff No.1’s father was in possession of the suit schedule property unauthorisedly and applied for grant of the said land. The Tahasildar granted the said land in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 favour of plaintiff No.1’s father. The grant order made in favour of plaintiff No.1’s father was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner; the Assistant Commissioner set aside the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1’s father. He deposed that, the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the grant order. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, have produced the following documents: a) Ex.P1 is the grant certificate, which discloses that, the suit schedule property was granted in favour of plaintiff No.1's father. b) Ex.P2 is the RTC extract. c) Ex.P3 is the notice. d) Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.04.2006. e) Exs.P5 and P6 are the Kandayam receipts. f) Ex.P7 is the Patta book The plaintiffs have also examined 2 witnesses as PWs-2 and 3 to prove their possession. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 17. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1. He deposed that, the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, approached the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father. He also deposed that, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the defendant preferred an appeal before the KAT. The KAT has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. He deposed that, the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. To substantiate their defence, produced the documents Exs.D1 to D8. 18. From the perusal of the entire records, admittedly, the suit land was granted in favour of the plaintiff No.1's father. Grant made in favour of plaintiff - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 No.1's father was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had set aside the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father. Defendant preferred an appeal before the KAT. The KAT set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. After remand, the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In view of the cancellation of grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father, the plaintiffs being in possession of the suit schedule property would not arise. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court. The defendant has produced the copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 passed an order dated 20.02.2024, which clearly discloses that, the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 19.03.2003, cancelling the grant in favour of the father of plaintiff No.1, was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the First Appellate Court has committed a serious error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, when the matter was pending before the KAT. Now, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has attained finality regarding cancellation of the grant made in favour of plaintiff No.1's father. The Court can take into consideration the subsequent events. The Deputy Commissioner has passed an order during the pendency of this appeal. This Court has taken the judicial note on the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 20.02.2024. 19. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and capricious. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51078 RSA No. 1568 of 2014 20. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed; ii. The judgment and decree dated 23.09.2014 passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.169 of 2014 (old RA No.32 of 2012), is hereby set aside; iii. The judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Trial Court in OS No.1 of 2007 is restored; iv. No order as to costs; v. Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11