- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.585 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT SUMATHI W/O VASUDEVA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KAMALAPURA, AVINAHALLI VILLAGE, AVINAHALLI HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK - 577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAVAJAMMA DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE THE LRs OF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 2. YOGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. OMKARA GOWDA, SAGAR TALUK - 577401 R/O. AVINAHALLI VILLAGE, AVINAHALLI HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. SUGANDARAJA, S/O OMKARA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 AMBARAGODLU, AVINAHALLI HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 4. NAGARAJA S/O OMKARA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O AVINAHALLI VILLAGE, AVINAHALLI HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK - 577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KUMARA.K.G, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4-ABSENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025, R2 TO R4 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2024 PASSED IN RA.NO.6/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.256/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is absent. 2. Defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal challenging the judgment passed in R.A.No.6/2020 dated 13.02.2024 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs by reversing the judgment passed in O.S.No.256/2016 dated 28.10.2019 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, and granting permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the following property, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’. “¸ÁUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, D«£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.31 gÀ°è 1 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ ¨ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ d«ÄãÀÄ. EzÀPÉÌ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢. ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ £ÁgÁAiÀÄtzÀ ªÀÄ£É. ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ EzÉà ¸À.£ÀA.£À°ègÀĪÀ ºÀ¼Àî. GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ PÀÄAd¥Àà£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ eÁUÀ. zÀQëtPÉÌ ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ ¸ÉʤPÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ eÁUÀ.” 3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 Suit for bare injunction came to be filed by contending that plaintiffs are members of the joint family and first plaintiff is the mother of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and they are in joint possession of the suit property bearing Sy.No.31. 4. It is further contended that suit property was granted earlier by the Government and ’saguvali chit’ was also issued in the name of the husband of the plaintiff No.1. The said grant was dated 30.09.1977. 5. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that prior to grant of said land, the Revenue Inspector had visited the place of suit property and surveyed the land and prepared a sketch and along with the saguvali chit, the sketch was also enclosed. 6. Along with the husband of the plaintiff No.1, there were several others who were also granted the land in Sy.No.31. After the death of husband of the first plaintiff, name of the first plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records and they were cultivating the land by planting areca plants. Thus they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 7. Plaintiffs further contended that defendant without there being any semblance of right in respect of the suit property started interfering with the suit property. Therefore sought for an order of permanent injunction. 8. Learned Trial Judge, after due trial, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal in R.A No.6/2020 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and allowed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraphs 21 to 26 as under: “21. If we advert to the defence taken by the defendant, it is the categorical contention of the defendant that one Mr. Prabhakara Achari has been granted with the 3 acre areca nut and coconut plantation and among that 2 acre 10 guntas of land has been cultivating by defendant on oral sale agreement held between her and said Mr. Prabhakara Achari and that till today, she is in possession of said property. Further, she has disputed the boundaries of the suit schedule property and disputed the existence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 and identity of the suit schedule property. Though, she has given boundary in the written statement to the property in which she is alleged to be in possession, she has not at all produced document to substantiate the same. Though, Ex.D1 a grant certificate was produced with respect to 3 acres of land in Sy.No.31, in the boundary column it has been mentioned that it is as per the sketch. But, very interestingly no sketch has been produced. Hence, it is difficulty to believe the version of defendant. Moreover, the boundary mentioned in the suit schedule and the boundary mentioned in the written statement does not tally with each other and as such, it can be believed that the property of plaintiff and defendant are different. This is more so important for the fact that the defendant in her cross- examination has categorical admitted that the property of defendant and suit schedule property are entirely different. 22. Though the defendant has disputed the exact location, boundary and identity of the suit schedule property, it is to be remembered that the plaintiff has produced Ex.P2 i.e., sketch which itself narrates the existence and identity of the suit schedule property. Hence, the burden is on the person who assertes that the suit schedule property is not having exact location, boundary and identity. But, there are no oral or documentary evidence available on record to substantiate the same except self serving affidavit of defendant. Though the defendant has disputed the identity and boundary of the suit schedule property, in the written statement, no where she has mentioned that what is the exact boundary of suit schedule property and how the boundary mentioned in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 plaint schedule is different as that of the alleged boundary. It is more so important for the fact that she has categorically admitted during her cross examination that, she does not know for which property the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Hence, when she herself does not know on which property the present suit is filed, on what basis she is alleging that the boundary mentioned in the plaint schedule is wrong is not at all made out. Hence, it probibilies the court to believe the version of the plaintiff and as such, it can be held the defence of the defendants does not inspire the confidence of the Court. 23. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show that it is the plaintiffs’ who are in the possession of the suit schedule property and as such, the defence set up by the defendant does not inspire the confidence of Court. Further, P.W1 was duly cross- examined by learned counsel for defendant. But P.W-1 stood firmly on his stand and his testimony withstood the test of cross-examination. 24. Hence, looking at the background of the facts and also looking into the admissions of defendant coupled with the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs and also looking into the oral evidence of P.W-1, the Court can easily held that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. 25. In a suit for permanent injunction, except proving the possession, the plaintiff is also at burden to prove interference from defendant so as to entitle him for decree of permanent injunction. So far as the interference - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 is concerned, the plaintiff has clearly averred regarding the interference in his pleading and also in his chief examination and the defendant has not been able to elicit anything to contended that there has been no interference to the plaintiff. 26. Importantly the plaintiff has already proved the possession over the suit schedule property. Hence the defendant challenging the very possession of the plaintiff itself goes to show the interference by the defendant. In the written statement itself defendant disputed the identity of the suit schedule property. Hence when the defendant does not know with regard to the identity and existence of plaint schedule property the probable doubt arises that why they have filed written statement and contested the case of plaintiff. Mere defence itself shows the interference by the defendant to the suit schedule property. Moreover court has to take the notice of fact that if there existed no interference by the defendant, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to have filed the present suit for injunction.” 11. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is in appeal before this Court on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:  The findings given by the Lower Appellate Court at Para 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment is in contrary to the findings assigned in para 11, 12 and 13 of the Trial court.  The Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate that, the suit itself is not maintainable for the non-joinder of necessary parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025  The Lower Appellate court out have noted that Exhibit P-1 which is grant certified produced by the plaintiff does contain the boundaries of the schedule property. Further the in the cross examination the plaintiff clearly admitted there is no boundaries mentioned. Therefore, the Ex-P-1 is not sufficient prove the identity of suit property.  The Lower appellate court out have considered that when the plaintiff unable prove the identity of property and possession over suit property, the alleged interference of the defendant is false and baseless and the same cannot be accepted. Further the plaintiff contended that the defendant tried to trespass in to the suit scheduled property, but the plaintiff has not made any efforts lodge a complainant with jurisdictional police.  That lower appellate court failed to appreciate that when the plaintiff title to the property and identity of the property is in dispute, or under cloud, or where the defendant assert title thereto and their threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff has to sue for declaration of the title and consequential relief of injunction.  The lower appellate court out have noted that in case where possession has to be established on the basis of title of the property, as case of cultivating agriculture land and identity of the land, the issue may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 Substantial questions of law i. Whether the Lower Appellate is justified in decreeing the suit in contrary to the provisions of O-7 R-3 of C.P.C. where the plaintiff has failed to identify the suit schedule property, by appreciating Ex-P1, wherein no boundaries are mentioned therein ? ii. Whether the findings given by the Lower Appellate Court is perverse ? iii. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in reversing the Judgement and decree of the Trial Court which was on the basis of the facts and evidence of the case. iv. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit of the respondents without reversing the findings given by the Trial Court with regard to the possession of the parties over the suit schedule property? v. Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C and as per the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Hazari Vs Purushottam Tiwari reported in AIR 2001 SCC 965?” 12. Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that, defendant is the agreement holder from the erstwhile owner. Land in Sy.No.31 measured - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 huge extent of land, of which, only portion was granted to the husband of the first plaintiff. Plaintiffs are unnecessarily encroaching into the property of the defendant who is in possession of the suit property by virtue of the oral agreement from its erstwhile owner. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that there is a dispute as to the identity of the property and rightly dismissed the suit. Without any proper reasons, judgment of the Trial Court is upset by the First Appellate Court resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 13. Since learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is absent, first respondent having died during pendency of the appeal and respondent 2 to 4 being the legal representatives of deceased first respondent on record, this Court perused the material on record in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant. 14. As could be seen from the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is a ‘saguvali chit’ issued in the name of the husband of the first plaintiff. Areca plantation cannot be grown - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 overnight. After the death of husband of the first plaintiff, revenue entries were mutated in the name of the first plaintiff who is the mother of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. 15. According to plaintiffs, defendant is interfering with the suit property without any semblance of right. 16. As against such a contention, appellant/defendant contended before the Trial Court that she is in possession of the suit property by virtue of an oral agreement entered into by her with the erstwhile owner. 17. Defendant further contended that the erstwhile owner is no more and his legal representatives have agreed to sell the property in favour of the defendant and therefore plaintiffs are unnecessarily interfering with the possession of the suit property which is held by the defendant by virtue of the agreement having regard to the fact that plaintiffs are unable to locate their land as Sy.No.31 of the Avinahalli which measures more than 1,100 acres and has been granted to several people. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 18. The learned Trial Judge believed the defence of the defendant and dismissed the suit. 19. But as discussed supra, the First Appellate Court took into consideration the defence in its proper perspective and noted that, not even the date of the oral agreement is mentioned in the written statement and there is no other material on record placed by the defendant except the self serving testimony of defendant by examining herself as DW-1, did consider the case of the parties and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 20. Ex.D-1 is the saguvali chit, Ex.D-2 is the ration card, Ex.D-3 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D.4 is electricity bill, Ex.D.5 is Election Identity Card of the defendant. 21. As could be seen from the material on record, if the defendant is seeking the title over the suit property or wants to establish her title over the suit property on the question of identity based on oral agreement, it is always open for the defendant to file necessary suit and establish her right as per Ex. D-1/saguvali chit. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36768 RSA No. 585 of 2025 22. With that liberty and observation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are hardly sufficient to admit the appeal for further consideration. 23. Hence following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63