- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1337 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O JOGAIAH AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF BARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE BASUR POST, HIRENALLUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 55548 2. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O JOGAIAH AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF BARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE BASUR POST, HIRENALLUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 55548 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B K CHANDRADHARAPPA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 1(A) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 1(B) SRI. VEERENDRA S/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 1(C) SRI. RAGHU S/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE R/O BASOORU VILLAGE AND POST HIRENALLURU HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 1(D) SMT. MAMATHA W/O ANANDA D/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O CHANNAPURA VILLAGE AJJAMPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 1(E) SMT. PANKAJA W/O NAGARAJU D/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O HIRENALLURU VILLAGE AND POST HIRENALLURU HOBLI, KADURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO E)] THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 14.3.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., KADUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.12.2009 PASSED IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 O.S.NO.40/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., KADUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2013 passed in R.A. No.1 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction, contending that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 possession of the suit schedule property, as the said property was purchased by the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1972. Since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 5. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against the defendants before the police. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 the father of the defendants had borrowed a loan of Rs.1,000/- from the plaintiff and as a security for the loan, the registered sale deed was executed, which is a nominal sale deed. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as of the date of institution of the suit. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit against the defendants. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked six documents as Exhibits P1 to P6. 9. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1, examined two witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and marked nine documents as Exhibits D1 to D9. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 10. The Trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 01.12.2009. 11. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.40 of 2006 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.1 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur. 12. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal, and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment dated 14.03.2013. 13. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.1 of 2010 filed this Regular Second Appeal. 14. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 15. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. He submits that the First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the evidence on record, and has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. He also submitted that the plaintiff has reconveyed the property in favour of the defendants and the said aspect was not considered by the First Appellate Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants. 17. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming to be the owner and in possession of the suit property based on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 registered sale deed executed in 1972 and as of the date of filing the suit, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records, and the plaintiff has produced the RTCs marked as Exhibit P1 and P2. Exhibit P1 discloses that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 18. Further, the defendant No.2 examined as DW1, who has clearly admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and he also admitted that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against the defendants for interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court considering, Exhibit P1/RTC Extract pertaining to 2006, i.e., as of the date of filing the suit, the name of the plaintiff was shown in the RTC has passed the impugned judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 19. Under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, there is a presumption regarding the entries in the revenue records. The defendants have not rebutted the said presumption. The First Appellate Court drawing the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has rightly held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as of the date of filing the suit. 20. It is settled law that in a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession and interference as of the date of filing the suit. 21. The First Appellate Court has rightly considered the well-established principles of law and has passed the impugned judgment. 22. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment nor any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. 23. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3933 RSA No. 1337 of 2013 ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 14.03.2013 passed in R.A. No.1 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, is hereby confirmed. (iii) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20