- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 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. 829 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. GIRISH S/O PRAHLAD AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O. HUMCHA VILLAGE HUNCHA HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN - 577 436. 2. CHETAN S/O PRAHLAD AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. HUMCHA VILLAGE HUNCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN - 577 436. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S, ADV.) AND: SMT. GAYATHRI W/O GURURAJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O. MAIN ROAD KONANDDURU VILLAGE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 414. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.S. PRASHANTH, ADV.) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED IN RA No.7/2019 (OLD No.17/2019) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2019 PASSED IN OS No.124/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Appellant in this second appeal is challenging the validity of the decree of injunction passed in respect of the following property in O.S.No.124/2012 confirmed in R.A.No.7/2019. 2. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. Suit property as per schedule to plaint reads as under and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property. "zÁªÁ ±ÉåqÀÆ¯ï ¸ÉÆvÀÄÛ ºÉƸÀ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÀÄAZÁ ºÉÆç½, ºÀÄAZÁ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.97/1 gÀ°è£À 4 JPÀgÉ 38 UÀÄAmÉ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄãÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ZÀvÀÄðUÀr:- ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA97/2 ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA.96 GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA.98 zÀQëtPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA.94" - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 2.2. A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed in respect of the aforesaid property contending that the vendor of the plaintiff land has been granted land by the Government by Grant Order dated 05.09.1981 vide Ex.P.7. 2.3. After the non-alienation period, the schedule property was sold by the grantee in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was also put in possession of the property and he was in possession of the property. 2.4. When the defendant tried to interfere with the schedule property, plaintiff approached the civil Court to protect his lawful possession of the schedule property. 3. Suit on contest came to be decreed by holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property and there was no interference by the defendant. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/2019. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of factual and legal aspects of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 matter had dismissed the appeal of the defendant and confirmed the injunction decreeing in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court in this appeal on following grounds and substantial questions of law: "GROUNDS: • The judgments of courts below are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The entire judgments and decree of courts below are manifestly illegal and liable to be set aside. The courts below erred in not considering that the respondent was failed to prove that she was put in actual possession over the suit schedule on the date of execution of sale deed. • The courts below erred in not considering that the earlier owner was not in possession over the suit schedule property. The factum of possession of earlier owner has been disproved by the admission of PW2 in his evidence. The Pw2 has clearly admitted that he was not in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence it is clear that the actual possession has not been handed over by the earlier owner to the plaintiff on the date of execution of sale deed. This aspect has not been considered by the courts below. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 • The judgments of courts below erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession of the suit schedule properties. The courts below failed to appreciate the when the earlier owner was not in possession over the suit schedule property, then the question of handing over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent will not arise. This aspect has been lost sight by the courts below. The inference of the courts below is against the law and liable to be set-aside. • The courts below failed to appreciate the documentary evidence of record. The documents produced by both the parties clearly reveals that the defendants/appellant are in possession over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff. The said documentary evidence has not been appreciated by the courts below in a proper prospective. • The courts below failed to appreciate the mazar conducted by the revenue officials are clear that, the defendants are in possession over the suit schedule property. The courts below have doubted the said document and have rejected the same on the point that, the earlier Mahazar and subsequent mahazar are quite contradictory and it cannot be believed. The recitals in the Mazar have been wrongly interpreted by the courts below. The courts below has not considered that, there is a presumption attached to the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 mazar and the said presumption has not been successfully rebutted by the respondent/plaintiff at any point of time. • The courts below failed to appreciate the admission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has clearly stated that, on the date of sale deed, she was not put her in possession over the suit schedule property. This admission clearly states that, she was no put her in possession over the suit schedule property as per sale deed. Hence she is not in possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not explained clearly on what she was put in possession over the suit schedule property. This aspect of has not been considered by the courts below. • The courts below failed to consider that, the alleged earlier owner was not in possession of the suit schedule property. When he himself was not in possession of the same, the question of handing over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff will not arise. The courts below failed to consider, that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit schedule property. This aspect has been lost sight by the courts below. • The courts below have failed to appreciate the proper law to the facts and circumstance of the case. They failed to draw proper presumptions of law and facts. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 • The findings of courts below are not based on sound judicial principle. The facts, pleadings and evidence in the case have not been properly and in their true prospective appreciated. Viewed from any angle, the findings of the courts below are opposed to law, facts, evidence and probabilities of the case. The courts below failed to raise proper presumptions of law and facts and to apply proper law. On the other hand, the findings are based on mere surmises which the law does not allow. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are justified that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as against the oral and documentary evidence on record? 2. Whether suit of plaintiff for bare injunction is maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit schedule property? 3. Whether courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, in spite of ample evidence to show that the plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule properties." 7. Sri Harish Kumar M.S., learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that it is the defendant, who is in possession of the suit property for a period of more - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 than 30 years and he has also filed an application for regularization of his possession, which was rejected by the competent authority and against which, he has approached this Court in a Writ Petition as in W.P.No.10696/2020. Therefore, the appeal needs to be admitted for further consideration. 8. Per contra, Sri H.S. Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff supports the impugned judgment by contending that the suit land was granted land in favour of vendor of the plaintiff and he has purchased the same in the year 2007 by virtue of a registered sale deed and thereafter he is in possession of the property. 9. Therefore, the alleged possession of the defendant cannot be countenanced in law which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff which requires no further consideration in this appeal and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff purchased the schedule property by virtue of a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 registered sale deed in the year 2007. Land was granted to the vendor of the plaintiff by the Government vide Ex.P.7. 11. When the Government has granted land in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff necessarily the vendor of the plaintiff has also been put in possession of the property. Thus, on the day of sale in the year 2007 by the vendor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff came into possession of the suit schedule property based on the registered sale deed. 12. As against the title of the plaintiff, it is the contention of the defendant, who contends that he is in unauthorized possession of the schedule property for a period of more than 30 years and he had filed an application before the competent authority for regularization of his possession. 13. Admittedly, the competent authority has rejected such an application whereby there is no recognition of the possession of the schedule property by the competent authority at an undisputed point of time. 14. Rejection of the regularization has been questioned by the defendant before this Court in the aforesaid writ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36543 RSA No. 829 of 2022 petition. It is needless to emphasize that that respondent- plaintiff is a party in the said writ petition and if the defendant succeeds in the said writ petition, the decree which is under challenge in this appeal which is only a decree of permanent injunction would be subservient such an order of this Court in the pending writ petition. 15. With that observation, this Court does not find any good ground to admit the appeal for further consideration. 16. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42