- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B.V. VISHALA W/O B. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. B. VEERANNA S/O B BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 4609/40, 'B' BLOCK, 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS DAVANGERE - 57 004. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: B.N. NAGARAJ S/O NARAHARISHET, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KIRAN CHAMBERS, SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHAR - 577 516. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED10.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.257/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DAVANGERE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff despite the Trial Court granting a perpetual injunction against the defendants by judgment and decree dated 10.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.257/2009. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.257/2009 seeking the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.24/1P. It is their specific case that the original extent of the survey number measures 6 acres 13 guntas and that they have acquired right, title and interest - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 over an extent of 1 acre out of the said land under a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2000 and a subsequent registered gift deed. The plaintiffs assert absolute ownership over the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre. It is further averred that on 07.11.2002 the defendant, with an oblique motive, attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property along with his associates and caused damage to the temple constructed therein as well as to the water tank, thereby giving rise to the cause of action for the suit. 3. On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement, denying the material averments in the plaint. Though the defendant did not seriously dispute the plaintiffs’ title over the extent claimed, he stoutly denied the allegations of interference, trespass and encroachment. It was contended that the suit was devoid of cause of action and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. Both parties were afforded full opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiffs examined themselves and produced documents in support of their case; the defendant also entered the witness box and relied upon documentary evidence in rebuttal. 5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court answered the material issues in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established their ownership over the suit schedule property and had also proved the alleged acts of damage. However, while decreeing the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, the Trial Court restricted the relief of injunction on the eastern side of the plaintiffs’ property only up to the stone slab and declined to grant injunction beyond the said stone slab wall. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 6. Aggrieved by the restriction imposed on the grant of perpetual injunction to the limited extent indicated above, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. Perused the records. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the learned Trial Judge, having granted the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction, was justified in restricting the injunction on the eastern side only up to the stone slab of the plaintiffs’ property? (ii) What order? Findings on point No.(i): 8. Before this Court advert to the case on hand, it would be opposite for this Court to take cognizance of the prayer sought in the plaint, which reads as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 "a) For declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property, b) Consequently, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his relatives, family members, his agents, his servants, his supporters, his coolies, his henchmen or any other persons claiming unde the defendant from causing damage to the suit property of the plaintiffs in any manner, as the same is prejudicial to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. c) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant,his relatives, family members, his agents, his servants, his supporters, his coolies, his hench men or any other person or persons claiming under the defendant from trespassing in to the suit property of the plaintiffs with an intention to encroach the same, as the same is prejudicial to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs; d) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his relatives, family members, his servants, his coolies, his supporters, his henchmen or any other person of persons claiming under the defendant from forcibly dissposessing the pliantiffs from any portion of the suit schedule property as the same is prejudicial to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs; to slaborce tine or to going e) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant, d his relatives, family members, his agents, his servants, his coolies, his supporters, or any other person or persons/752 claminig under the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule b property by the plaintiffs, as the same is prejudicial to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs; aflinminiq edi f) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his relatives, family members, his agents, his servants, his coolies, his supporters, his henchmen or any other person or persons claiming under the defendant from causing obstruction to the plaintiffs in constructing the compoundwall on the eastern side of th suit property. g) For ourt costs and to grant such other reliefs as the natur Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 9. On a careful reading of prayer clause (f) in the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that the alleged interference by the defendant occurred when they were attempting to put up a compound wall on the eastern side of the suit schedule property. This admission assumes significance while examining the nature and extent of the dispute. 10. By way of rebuttal evidence, the defendant has produced photographs which disclose the existence of stone slabs erected in the nature of a compound, clearly demarcating the boundary between the plaintiffs’ property and that of the defendant. These photographs probabilise the defendant’s contention that a physical boundary already exists on the eastern side. 11. This Court also deems it appropriate to advert to Ex.D.17, namely the order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Tahasildar, wherein the boundary dispute between the parties was examined and adjudicated. For better - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 appreciation of the controversy, the relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein below: "ೕ.ಸ.ನಂ.24/1 ನ ಮೂಲ ಡುವಾರಾದ ೕ ೊನಪ  ದಪರವರು 1992ೇ ಇಸ!ಯ#$ ತಮ& 5-05½ ಎಕೆ ಜ*ೕನನು ೕ .ಎ. ಾಗಾ,  ನರºÀ±ÉÃ- ಎನುವವ.ೆ ಕಯ/ೆ0 1ಾಾಟ 1ಾ3ದು, ೕಮ4 !5ಾಲ . !ೕರಣ7ನವ.ೆ ಒಟು9 1-00 ಎಕೆ ಜ*ೕನನು :ಾಂಕಃ 25.05.2000ರಂದು ªÀÄvÀÄÛ :ಾಂಕಃ 31.03.2001gÀ°è ಕಯ/ೆ0 1ಾಾಟ 1ಾ3ದು, 31.03.2001 423 ಎಕೆ ಜ*ೕನು ಾ# ೊನಪನವರ <ಾ=>ೕನದ#$ರುತ?ೆ. @ದಲ ಕಯಾರಾದ ೕ .ಎ. ಾಗಾ,  ನರಹ5ೇ- ರವರ ಕಯ ¥Àತದ#$ ಾವಣ.ೆೆ-ಹಹರ ರ<ೆ?.ೆ ಲಗತು? 120 ಅ3Cಂದು ಇರುತ?ೆ. ಆದೆ, ಪಂಚ#ಂ.ೇಶ=ರ ೇವ<ಾGನವನು ಕಟು9Hಾಗ ಸದ Iಾಗದ ಸJಾದ ಅಳLೆ 1ಾಡೇ JಾವMೇ ಚಕು0ಬಂ:ಗಳನು Lೋಸೆ ೕಮ4 !5ಾಲ  !ೕರಣ7ನವರು ೇವ<ಾGನವನು ಅವರ Iಾಗದ#$ ಕO9ರುLಾ?ೆ. ಇವರು 13 ಅ3ಯಷು9 ಜ*ೕನನು ಒತು?ವ 1ಾ3ರುLಾ?ೆ. :ಾಂಕಃ 14.07.2010ರಂದು ಅಳLೆ ಸಮಯದ#$ ಮೂಲ ಡುವಾರಾದ ೕ ೊನಪೕ !ೕರಣQ ೕ ಾಗಾ, ಮತು? ಅವರುಗಳ ವRೕಲರು ಾಜಾSರುLಾ?ೆ." 12. On reading the extracted portion, now this Court also deems it absolutely necessary to advert to the grounds urged in the captioned appeal. Grounds (g) and (h) would be relevant. The same are extracted as under: "(g) In the said situation the learned Trial Judge framed as many as seven issues on the basis of contentions taken by the parties. After reconsidering evidence, evaluating the materials on record, came to definite conclusion by passing an order in almost all the issues in the affirmative. The learned Trial Judge made clear observation and came to definite conclusion that there is no interference, damage - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 caused, demolition made by the Defendant towards eastern side of suit schedule property by damaging water tank, Banni Tree and other installations. It is also the case of the Appellants that the Respondent encroached upon the suit schedule property from eastern side. The trespass and encroachment is about 3 to 4 feet in the suit schedule property towards eastern side. (h) It is submitted that the illegal act of the Respondent has totally caused inconvenience to the devotees and has hurted religious feelings of the said persons. In front of the temple where the main door towards eastern side is fixed, the devotees are found it very difficult to enter the temple through main door as the space towards eastern side has virtually narrowed down by illegal occupation of the Respondent in the suit schedule property." [Emphasis Supplied] 13. On a careful reading of the extracted portion, it is evident that the plaintiffs have candidly admitted that they are not in possession of the disputed open space, which now forms the subject matter of the present appeal. This unequivocal admission, in the considered opinion of this Court, goes to the root of the matter. The record further discloses that the jurisdictional Tahasildar, while adjudicating the boundary dispute under Ex.D.17 by conducting a survey preceded by a spot inspection, has recorded a specific finding that the plaintiffs had encroached upon the adjoining land to an extent of 13 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 feet. At the same time, the Tahasildar, taking note of the existing stone slab compound, has demarcated the boundary between the plaintiffs’ property and that of the defendant. It is not in dispute that the said order has attained finality, as neither of the parties has chosen to challenge it before the competent forum. 14. In the backdrop of these significant facts, though the plaintiffs are entitled to seek a declaration of title in respect of the property lawfully owned by them, their insistence that a decree for perpetual injunction ought to be granted even in respect of the vacant space beyond the compound wall is wholly misconceived. It is trite that the grant of a decree for perpetual injunction is primarily founded on lawful and settled possession as on the date of the suit. In the present case, the plaintiffs themselves admit that they are not in possession of the disputed open space beyond the compound wall. This admission, coupled with the findings recorded in Ex.D.17 that the plaintiffs had in fact encroached upon the adjoining land belonging - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 to the defendant, disentitles them from seeking an injunction in respect of such portion. 15. The material on record clearly indicates that the stone slabs erected by the plaintiffs demarcate the temple property from the adjoining land of the defendant. Once such a boundary exists and the plaintiffs concede that they are not in possession beyond the said demarcation, no equitable or legal basis exists to extend the relief of injunction further. The Trial Court, therefore, was fully justified in restricting the decree for perpetual injunction up to the compound wall and in declining relief beyond that point. The said restriction is in consonance with the settled principles governing injunctions and warrants no interference in appeal. 16. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable on facts and does not advance their case. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the "Affirmative". - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10739 RFA No. 659 of 2011 Finding on point No.(ii): 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER The regular first appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9