Karnataka High Court
Jannapura Devalayagal Samithi vs Sree Mariyamman on 13 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.407 OF 2017 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
JANNAPURA DEVALAYAGAL SAMITHI
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
SREE MALLESWARA DEVASTHANA,
MALLESWARA CIRCLE, JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
J.V. VIRUPAKSHAIAH
S/O LATE J.P. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
SECRETARY,
M.B. PARASHURAMA,
S/O MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARMA
ANAND CHAYA AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SREE MARIYAMMAN DEVASTHANAM
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: VELLORE-SHED,
JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
K. KANNAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/O RAJAPPA LAYOUT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL CONCIL
BHADRAVATHI.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. LOKANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03RD OCTOBER, 2016
PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.57 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06TH MARCH, 2013
PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.127 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BHADRAVATI.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the
judgment and decree dated 03rd October, 2016 passed in
Regular Appeal No.57 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi (for short, hereinafter
referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal
and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06th March,
2013 passed in Original Suit No.127 of 2011 on the file of the I
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the
plaintiff came to be dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial
Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a
registered Society established for the purpose of maintenance
and improvement of three temples namely Sri. Malleshwara
Devastana, Sri. Antharaghattamma Devastana and Sri.
Udusulamma Devastana situate at Jannapura, Bhadravathi.
Sri. Udusulamma Temple is old temple and also known as
Kariyamma Devi Temple. It is also stated that the main
entrance of the temples is towards Eastern side and on the
Southern side boundary, there is a small rock image which was
being worshiped as Sri. Mariyamma Deity. It is further stated
in the plaint that the president of the defendant No.1-Society
requested the plaintiff-Society to provide a piece of land for the
purpose of Sanctorum of Mariyamma Deity as per letter dated
01st November, 2001 and thereafter, requested for increasing
extent of land. In this regard, the General Body of the
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
plaintiff-Society resolved to provide an extent of 25 x 41 feet to
the defendant No.1-Society, subject to the condition that the
defendant No.1 shall construct a compound wall for atleast 10
feet height surrounding the extent of land to be given to the
defendant No.1-Soceity in view of the fact that the devotees of
Sri. Mariyamma Deity have to involve in the animal sacrifice,
since the sacrifice of the animal is prohibitive in respect of the
devotees of Sri. Udusulamma Deity. Thereafter, the defendant
No.1-Soceity failed to construct the compound wall and same
has caused inconvenience to the devotees of Sri. Udusulamma
Deity by way of open sacrifice of animals and as such, plaintiff-
Society put-up compound wall in the plaint schedule premises.
It is further stated that, the aforesaid temples are situate in
the land belonging to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant and
since the defendants are interfering with the possession of the
plaintiff's Temple, the plaintiff-Society filed Original Suit No.127
of 2011, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the
defendants.
4. Upon service of notice, defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement, disputing the
boundaries of the plaint schedule property and took-up a
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
contention that Sri. Mariyamma Temple is existing from the
time immemorial and the defendants never interfered with the
suit schedule property of the plaintiff-Society and accordingly
sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendant No.2-City Municipal Council,
Bhadravathi filed separate written statement stating that the
plaint schedule property belongs to Visvesvaraya Iron and
Steel Plant and therefore the suit is not maintainable.
6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record,
formulated the issues for its consideration.
7. In order to prove their case, plaintiff examined two
witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 20 documents as
Exhibits P1 to P20. On the other hand, defendants examined
one witness as DW1 and marked 5 documents as Exhibits D1
to D5.
8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 06th March, 2013,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Society. Being aggrieved by
the same, the plaintiff-Society preferred Regular Appeal 57 of
2013 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by
judgment and decree dated 03rd October, 2016, dismissed the
appeal. Bing aggrieved by the same, plaintiff-Society preferred
the present appeal.
9. This Court, by order dated 10th February, 2020
formulated the following Substantial Question of Law:
"In a suit for bare injunction (based on possession
by the first defendant), when it was found by the trial
Court and Appellate Court that the first defendant had
sought for permission to utilize the portion of the land in
possession of the plaintiff and when the possession of
the land by the plaintiff was not disputed by the first
defendant in his written statement, whether the trial
Court and the appellate Court could have dismissed the
suit for injunction on the ground legal right of the
plaintiff over the property was not proved."
10. Heard Sri. Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant; Sri. R. Lokanatha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1; and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
11. Sri. Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to
the admission made by the DW1 with regard to the possession
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
of the schedule property by the plaintiff-Society and contended
that, both Courts below have committed an error by not
considering the revenue records which is standing in the name
of the plaintiff-Society in respect of the suit schedule property.
It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that, both the courts have wrongly rejected the claim made by
the plaintiff-Society with regard to possession of the suit
schedule property despite, the plaint schedule property is
belonged to Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant. Accordingly, he
sought for interference of this Court.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent sought to justify the impugned judgments passed
by the Courts below.
13. Having taken note of the submission made by
learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully
examined the original records. It is forthcoming from the
records that the suit property is situated at Visvesvaraya Iron
and Steel Plant, Bhadravathi and there are three temples
namely, Sri. Malleshwara Devastana, Sri. Antharaghattamma
Devastana and Sri. Udusulamma Devastana. On the other
hand, another temple namely Sri. Mariyamma Temple is
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
situated towards Southern side of the boundary of the plaint
schedule property. The dispute is with regard to boundaries
between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Though the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the
attention of the Court to the admission made by DW1, the
existence of Sri. Udusulamma Temple is shown in the Village
Map produced at Exhibit P11. The entire case of the plaintiff-
Society revolves around the rough sketch of suit schedule
property produced at Exhibit P1. In that view of the matter,
since the land in question is belonged to Visvesvaraya Iron and
Steel Plant and neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 are
the owners of the suit schedule property, taking into
consideration the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Shivamogga, dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff
against the order passed by the respondent No.2 herein in C.C.
No.10/2008-09, I am of the view that the contention raised by
the appellant cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that,
in order to consider the case for granting relief of permanent
injunction, the settled possession of the parties has to be
considered. On careful examination of the averments made
out in the plaint and the evidence of PW1, I am of the view
NC: 2025:KHC:31347
RSA NO.407 OF 2017
HC-KAR
that, the ingredients for granting relief of permanent injunction
has not been made out by the plaintiff by establishing the
possession of the entire suit property on the sole ground that
the plaintiff itself admits in the plaint about parting with the
portion of the land as per their General Body resolution dated
03rd November, 2001 to provide an extent of 25 x 41 feet to
the defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, both the
Courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence on record
and dismissed the suit as the plaintiff-Society has failed to
prove the possession in respect of the suit schedule property.
Accordingly, the substantial question of law framed by this
Court favours the defendants and there is no perversity in the
judgment and decree by both the Courts below. In the result,
Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
