Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramu vs Smt. Mamatha on 15 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26131
RSA No. 757 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.757 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMU
S/O LATE SUGATURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT T. PURAHALLI VILLAGE
SUGATUR HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN-563102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.V.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MAMATHA
W/O VENKATARAMA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. SRI. VENKATARAMAPPA
COURT OF S/O PAPISHETTY
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
BOTH ARE
R/AT T. PURAHALLI VILLAGE
SUGATUR HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT,
PIN-563102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISWESWARAIAH S., ADVOCATE FOR
R1 AND R2 - ABSENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26131
RSA No. 757 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.127/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.583/2014 ON THE FILE
OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondents is absent.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent
injunction in respect of the suit schedule property is that they
are in lawful possession over the suit schedule property and
also contend that defendant started interfering over the suit
schedule property.
3. The defendant appeared and filed the written
statement contending that suit schedule property and the
defendant's property originally belongs to the Government. The
NC: 2025:KHC:26131
HC-KAR
defendant filed application under Form No.53 before the
Tahsildar, Kolar and the said application is still pending for
adjudication. The defendant's father was in exclusive
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for
more than 30 years by growing seasonal crops. The plaintiffs
have encroached 30 guntas of the defendant's property on the
southern side and also created illegal documents and
obstructed peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property.
3. The Trial Court having considered the material
available on record, particularly the evidence of D.W.1, wherein
he categorically admits that plaintiffs are in possession of the
suit schedule property and they have taken electricity
connection and family members of Krishnappa are residing
even today and taken note of admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 and
also the material available on record and comes to the
conclusion that possession of the plaintiffs has been established
and also comes to the conclusion that interference is proved,
since they are claiming that the property originally belongs to
the Government and now contend that very same property is
NC: 2025:KHC:26131
HC-KAR
allotted in their favour. When such admission is available before
the Court, the Trial Court granted the relief of permanent
injunction.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment granting the
relief of permanent injunction, an appeal is filed in
R.A.No.127/2023 and the First Appellate Court also having
considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated
the point whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that
plaintiffs are in possession of the property and with regard to
the interference and it requires interference of this Court.
5. The First Appellate Court having considered the
material on record, particularly the admissions on the part of
the witnesses, comes to the conclusion that possession is
admitted and in paragraph No.33 comes to the conclusion that
defendant's contention is that in Sy.No.34, 1 acre, 16 guntas of
land is granted in his favour and the grant of land in favour of
the defendant to an extent of 1 acre, 16 guntas is not disputed
by the plaintiffs and defendant has also obtained decree in O.S.
No.159/2005 in a suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction. However, the decreetal of O.S.No.159/2005 will not
NC: 2025:KHC:26131
HC-KAR
entitle the defendant to obstruct the plaintiffs' peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and
also having noticed that already there was a decree in respect
of the property which was granted in favour of the
appellant/defendant, which has also been considered by the
First Appellate Court, taken note of admission on the part of
D.Ws.1 to 3 in paragraph No.32 and when the First Appellate
Court comes to the conclusion that no error has been
committed by the Trial Court.
6. The main contention of counsel appearing for the
appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have
committed an error in granting the relief of permanent
injunction and contend that suit schedule property is granted
by the Tahsildar, Kolar vide LND.RUO.46/2002-03 and in terms
of Ex.D1, Saguvali Chit was also issued and Exs.D3 and D4 are
the judgments and the same have not been considered by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while considering the
material on record.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly
NC: 2025:KHC:26131
HC-KAR
the admissions on the part of D.Ws.1 to 3, in the cross-
examination categorically admitted that family of Krishnappa
are still residing in the property i.e., in Khatha No.220
measuring 30 x 40 feet and D.W.1 categorically says that he
had seen the house and in the said house itself, the plaintiffs
are residing till date and when such admission was given and
the same was also extracted in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 and
the First Appellate Court also with regard to the very contention
urged before this Court in respect of Ex.D1 Saguvali Chit is
concerned, the same is also taken note of in paragraph Nos.33
that already even injunction was obtained by the appellant in
O.S.No.159/2005 i.e. in respect of 1 acre, 16 guntas which was
granted in favour of the defendant. When such being the case,
question of admitting and framing substantial question of law in
the present second appeal does not arise and both the question
of fact and question of law was considered by the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court since the said appeal being the
Statutory appeal. When such being the case, I do not find any
ground to admit and frame substantial question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:26131
HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
