- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2009 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI C. PUTTAVEEREGOWDA S/O CHIKKAEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O HIREMARALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI VASU K, ADV.) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK PANDAVAPURA - 571 434. 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA 1ST CIRCLE TALUK OFFICE PANDAVAPURA - 571 434. 4. SMT. JAVARAMMA W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O HIRIMARALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 434. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; V/O DTD:08.10.2012 NOTICE TO R-4 IS H/S) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED09.10.2009 PASSED IN R.A.01/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.) AND JMFC PANDAVAPURA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED14.01.2008 PASSED IN O.S.63/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.9/2008) by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Pandavapura. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent no.4 who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 3. Suit in O.S.No.63/2002 was filed by the appellants herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Pandavapura, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against defendant nos.2 to 4. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was purchased by his father under a registered sale deed dated 15.11.1940 as per Ex.P-1 and subsequently under a partition deed dated 20.04.1992 at Ex.P-3, the suit schedule property was allotted to his share. It is also his case that subsequent to the partition, the revenue entries of the suit schedule property were mutated in his name and the revenue documents of the suit schedule property were also produced before the Trial Court as per Exs.P-4 to P-14. 5. Defendant nos.2 & 3 had filed written statement opposing the suit claim. They had contended that they had not visited the suits schedule property as alleged and there was no cause of action for filing the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 6. Defendant no.4 had filed a separate written statement contending that she is in possession of the suit schedule property and the same was purchased by her father and after her father, she had succeeded to the said property. 7. The Trial Court on the basis of the rival pleadings, had framed the following issues: Issues 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property within suit boundaries as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the alleged interference is true? 3. What order or decree? Additional Issue 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable under Section 80 CPC? 8. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he had examined himself as PW-1 and got examined two other witnesses as PW-2 & PW-3. He also got marked 14 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-14. Defendant no.4 got examined herself as DW-1 and three - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 other witnesses as DW-2 to DW-4. One document was marked as Ex.D-1. 9. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the Trial Court had decreed the suit against the defendant nos.2 to 4. The said judgment and decree was challenged by defendant no.4 in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.9/2008) which was allowed by the Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 10. This Court while admitting this Regular Second Appeal has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal. "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in allowing R.A.No.1/2009 preferred by defendant no.4 and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.63/2002 wherein it has decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting permanent injunction restraining defendants 2 and 3 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court only on the ground that there was no material available on record which would go to show that defendant nos.2 to 4 had interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, and therefore, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. He submits that oral and documentary evidence placed on record has been completely overlooked by the Appellate Court and an erroneous finding has been recorded. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Learned AGA submits that respondent nos.1 to 3 are only formal parties and they had filed the written statement contending that respondent nos.2 & 3/defendant nos.2 & 3 had never visited the suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint and there was no cause of action for filing the suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was purchased by his father under a registered sale deed and to prove his claim, in addition to his oral evidence, he - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 also had produced the copy of the registered sale deed dated 15.11.1940, under which the suit schedule property was purchased by his father. Ex.P-3 is the copy of the panchayat palupatti dated 20.04.1992 under which the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. The revenue records which are placed on record by the plaintiffs would go to show that the panchayat palupatti as per Ex.P-3 was acted upon and the entries in the revenue records were transferred in the name of the plaintiffs. 14. PW-1 to PW-3 have categorically stated that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and crops like sugarcane, paddy, etc., were grown in the said property by the plaintiff. It was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff that defendant nos.2 & 3 had come to the suit schedule property at the instance of defendant no.4 and had tried to survey the property and after the plaintiff had resisted the said action, defendant nos.2 & 3 had gone back. PW-1 to PW-3 during the course of their deposition before the Trial Court, have spoken about the alleged interference by defendant nos.2 & 3 at the instance of defendant no.4 in respect of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 suit schedule property which is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. 15. Defendant no.4 had examined herself before the Trial Court as DW-1. During the course of her cross-examination, it has come on record that she had not filed any application for survey of the suit schedule property. However, she has admitted that the Tahsildar had come to the suit schedule property for the purpose of surveying the property, but he had returned without surveying the property after noticing that sugarcane crop was grown in the suit schedule property. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was absolutely no material available on record to show that there was interference by defendant nos.2 to 4 in respect of the suit schedule property which is in possession of the plaintiff. 16. The Appellate Court, however, has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has erred in recording a finding that there is no material available whatsoever on record which would go to show that defendant nos.2 to 4 had tried to interfere or obstruct with the possession of the suit schedule property by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 the plaintiffs, and therefore, there was no cause of action to file the suit. 17. In my considered opinion, having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Trial Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit and the Appellate Court overlooking the oral and documentary evidence has rendered a finding that there is no material available on record to prove the alleged interference and obstruction by defendant nos.2 to 4 with the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. 18. Defendant no.4 who has claimed that the suit schedule property was purchased by her father and after his death, she had succeeded to the property, has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of her claim. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the well considered judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, and therefore, the question of law framed by this Court is answered in the negative. Accordingly, the following order: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3776 RSA No. 1688 of 2009 19. Regular second appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.1/2009 (Old No.9/2008) by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Pandavapura, is set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.63/2002 by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Pandavapura, is confirmed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK