Karnataka High Court
Chanbassappa S/O Ningappa Somannanoor vs Shivamma And Ors on 19 August, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
RSA No. 200325 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200325 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
CHANBASAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA SOMANNANOOR,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
R/O: HATTIKUNI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: YADGIRI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S. SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVAMMA
W/O MAHADEVAPPA,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA AGE: 72 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. RAMALINGAPPA
KARNATAKA S/O MAHADEVAPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
(EXPIRED ON 17.05.2017
BY PROPOSED LRS,)
a) MALLAPPA
S/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
b) SHIVAPPA
S/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
RSA No. 200325 of 2019
HC-KAR
c) MASHEAPPA
S/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
3. DEVAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI,
R/O: BADIYAL, TQ: DIST: YADGIR.
4. CHANDRAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
5. SHARANAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS,
ALL OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HATTIKUNI,
TQ: AND DIST: YADAGIRI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE BOTH IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 7.9.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2016
PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT YADGIR
VIDE ANNEXURE-I, AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE
CONSIDERED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2016
PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2012 BY THE COURT CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C, AT YADGIR VIDE ANNEXURE-II, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SUIT
OF PLTF/APPELLANT BY SUITABLE MODIFICATION AND ETC.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
RSA No. 200325 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal is filed by the
appellant/plaintiff praying to set aside the Judgment and
decree dated 07.09.2019 passed in R.A.No.50/2016 by the
Senior Civil Judge, Yadgir (for short, 'the First Appellate
Court'), whereunder, the Judgment and decree dated
09.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.43/2012 by the Civil Judge
and JMFC Court, Yadgir (for short, 'the Trial Court'), has
been reversed.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.43/2012
against the respondents/defendants seeking relief of
perpetual injunction.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that, he is the owner
and possessor of suit property bearing Sy.No.18
measuring 4 acres 37 guntas situated at Yekkalli village of
Yadgir taluka and district.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
4. The plaintiff has contended that, the suit
schedule property was belonging to Government of
Karnataka and plaintiff has been cultivating it for last 30
years. He filed application before the Land Tribunal on
08.03.1999. Prior to 08.03.1999 he was cultivating the
said land for 18 years. The officials of Tahsildar visited the
suit land and found the unauthorized cultivation of
plaintiff. Thereafter, his unauthorized cultivation of the
suit land was regularized and grant certificate has been
issued in his favour on 20.02.2004. The plaintiff contended
that, he is in lawful possession of suit schedule property
and the defendants without having any right, title or
interest over the suit land, they are restraining the plaintiff
from carrying the agricultural operations in the suit land.
Hence, he filed suit for injunction.
5. The defendant No.4 filed written statement and
contended that, the plaintiff is not the owner and
possessor of the suit land. The cultivation of the plaintiff
over the suit land for 30 years has been disputed by the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
defendants and the grant of suit land in favour of the
plaintiff has also been disputed. The defendants contended
that the plaintiff was falsely representing himself as
belonging to Scheduled Caste, filed application and by
playing fraud, he got grant of land. The defendants
contended that, the Assistant Commissioner found that the
plaintiff obtained the land by fraud and cancelled the
grant. The defendants contended that they are in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
6. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Trial
Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
possession of the suit schedule property as on the
date of the filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that
defendants have made interference over the suit
schedule property of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as
sought for?
4. What order or decree?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
7. In order to prove the said issues, the plaintiff
has been examined himself as PW.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P13 and one witness has been examined as
PW.2. The defendant No.4 has been examined as DW.1
and got marked Exs.D1 to D8.
8. The Trial Court after hearing arguments and
appreciating the evidence on record, has answered issue
Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the
plaintiff and restrained the defendants from interfering in
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over
the suit schedule property.
9. The defendant Nos.2 to 6 have challenged the
said judgment of the Trial Court in R.A.No.50/2016. The
First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments on both
sides, has passed the impugned judgment reversing the
judgment passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit
of the plaintiff. The said judgment of the First Appellate
Court has been challenged in this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
10. This Court has admitted the appeal by
formulating the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the finding recorded by the First
Appellate Court interfering with the finding recorded
by the Trial Court on issue No.1 is just and proper?"
11. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that, the plaintiff was unauthorized cultivator of
the suit property, he filed application for grant of suit land.
The Tahsildar held enquiry and issued Saguvali Pramana
Patra (Ex.P1) by passing an order (Ex.P2). The plaintiff
has paid premium receipt, which is at Ex.P3. As the
defendants were interfering in his possession, he
requested the Tahsildar to give police protection. The
Tahsildar in turn has written a letter to PSI to give police
protection. He submits that as on the date of suit, the
plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property as
owner. Therefore, he is entitled for perpetual injunction
against the defendants.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel further submits that, the order
passed by the Tahsildar (Ex.D7) canceling the grant of suit
land to the plaintiff is during the pendency of the suit at
the instance of the defendants and the same has been
challenged and now it is pending consideration before this
Court in W.P.No.202635/2022. He further submits that, by
virtue of the said order at Ex.D7, the possession of the suit
property has not been taken from the plaintiff and the said
order passed by the Assistant Commission (Ex.D7) is
challenged in the said writ petition. Even in spite of this,
the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the
judgment of the Trial Court on the basis of the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Ex.D7). He further
submits that the evidence of PW.2 with regard to
possession has not been challenged as there is no cross-
examination. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
13. Learned counsel for respondents-defendants
would contend that, the plaintiff has made application for
grant of land by making false submission that he belongs
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
to Scheduled Caste and fraudulently obtained Ex.P1-
Saguvali Pramana Patra. The said aspect came to light
and Assistant Commissioner after enquiry, passed order
(Ex.D7) canceling the grant of land in favour of plaintiff.
He contends that, the defendants are in possession of suit
property and they have also filed application (Ex.D8)
seeking grant of suit property. He further submits that
there is cloud over title of the property, therefore, he is
not entitled for relief of injunction. With this he prayed for
dismissal of appeal.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court perused the impugned judgment and the Trial
Court Records.
15. The plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual
injunction based on his title as per Ex.P1-Saguvali
Pramana Patra issued by Tahsildar as per order of the
Tahsildar (Ex.P2). The plaintiff has paid premium, receipt
of which is at Ex.P3. The suit has been filed on
25.02.2012. As on the date of the suit, Ex.P1-Saguvali
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
Pramana Patra issued by Tahsildar has not been cancelled.
Ex.P4-letter written by the Tahsildar to PSI indicates that,
the police protection is accorded to the plaintiff to protect
his possession over suit property. PW.2-Narsappa has
deposed that, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
property and he is cultivating the same. There is no
cross-examination of PW.2. Therefore, the said evidence
of PW.2 remained unchallenged.
16. During pendency of the suit, the Assistant
Commissioner has passed an order at Ex.D7 dated
26.12.2012 cancelling the grant made in favour of
plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the said order of
Assistant Commissioner (Ex.D7) before the Deputy
Commissioner in Revision Petition No.32/2013-14. The
copy of the revision petition is at Ex.P5. Subsequently,
the plaintiff filed a memo for withdrawal of said revision
petition. Based on the said memo, the Deputy
Commissioner disposed of the said revision petition. The
plaintiff has challenged the said order of Assistant
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
Commissioner (Ex.D7) before this Court in
W.P.No.202635/2022. The documents produced indicate
that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
(Ex.D7) has been stayed in the said writ petition. As on
the date of suit, there was no any cloud on the title of the
plaintiff so as to relegate him to file suit for declaration.
17. The claim of the defendants is that they are
cultivating the suit land unauthorizidely and the
application dated 01.03.1999 (Ex.D8) is pending
consideration before the authorities. The suit property has
not been granted to defendants.
18. The plaintiff has also produced Exs.P8 and P12
photographs and Ex.P13-CD containing digital images of
the photographs. The said photographs show that the
plaintiff is standing and he has dug boerwell in the suit
land. Without considering all these aspects, the First
Appellate Court has erred in re-appreciating the evidence
on record and setting the judgment passed by the Trial
Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4765
HC-KAR
has proved his possession over the suit property. In
considering the same, the Trial Court has given its finding
on issue No.1. In view of the above, the substantial
question of law is answered accordingly.
19. In view of the above, the judgment passed by
the First Appellate Court requires to be set aside and
judgment passed by the Trial Court requires to be
restored. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1) The appeal is allowed.
2) The impugned judgment and decree dated
07.09.2019 passed in R.A.No.50/1026 by the
Senior Civil Judge, Yadgir is set aside.
3) The judgment and decree dated 09.09.2016
passed in O.S.No.43/2012 by the Civil Judge
& JMFC, Yadgir is restored.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SVH,SDU
CT:VK
