Karnataka High Court
Ramu vs C N Ramesh on 5 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
RSA No. 1718 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1718 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
RAMU S/O PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NOW RESIDING AT: JANATHA COLONY
KUVEMPU NAGARA, NAGASAMUDRA ROAD
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 572 301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
C.N. RAMESH S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O KOTHANAGHATTA VILLAGE
SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
Digitally HASSAN DISTRICT - 572 301.
signed by ...RESPONDENT
SUNITHA K S
Location: THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
HIGH COURT SET AISDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.85/2017
OF PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KARNATAKA
CHANNARAYAPATNA DATED 14.11.2022 AND THE JUDGMENT
IN R.A.NO.05/2023 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN
DATED 01.10.2024.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
RSA No. 1718 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant
challenging the Judgment and decree dated 01.10.2024
passed in R.A No.5/2023 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan and the
Judgment and decree dated 14.11.2022 passed in
O.S.No.85/2017 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., Channarayapatna.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to
based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The
appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the
defendant.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this
appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit
schedule property was granted by the Government in his
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
favour. The plaintiff had constructed a house in the suit
schedule property and started residing in the suit schedule
property with his family members. The katha is standing in
the name of the plaintiff, and he is paying tax to the
concerned Authority regularly. The defendant without any
right, title or interest over the suit schedule property is
trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
Hence, the plaintiff complained to the concerned
jurisdictional police and Municipal Authority. Despite
lodging the complaint, the defendant did not stop
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, a
cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file a suit for
permanent injunction. Accordingly, he prays to decree the
suit.
4. The defendant filed the written statement
denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended
that the suit schedule property was initially granted in
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
favour of one Rangappa S/o Nanjappa by the Municipality,
Channarayapatna. It is further contended that his mother-
Smt. Lakshmamma purchased the suit schedule property
from the said Rangappa on 24.10.1994, and his mother
was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. After her demise, the defendant and his family
members continued to posses and enjoy the suit schedule
property as the absolute owners. It is further contended
that the plaintiff without any right, tile and possession
over the said property, caused interference to the
defendant's possession and hence, the defendant filed a
suit in O.S.No.91/2017 on the file of the II Addl. Civil
Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna. The plaintiff, by
creating and concocting certain documents, filed this false
suit, against the defendant without impleading Municipal
Authority as a party to the suit. Hence, the defendant has
prays to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff, to
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined
two witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and marked 29 documents
as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. In rebuttal, the defendant examined
himself as D.W.1, examined one witness as D.W.2 and
marked 26 documents as Exs.D1 to D26. The Trial Court,
on assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated
14.11.2022. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of
the suit in O.S.No.85/2017, preferred an appeal in
R.A.No.5/2023, on the file of the learned Additional Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC at Channarayapatna, Hassan.
6. The First Appellate Court, on the re-assessment
of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal
vide judgment dated 01.10.2024, confirming the judgment
passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by
the impugned judgment, passed by the First Appellate
Court, filed this regular second appeal.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
the plaintiff is an absolute owner of the suit schedule
property and the same was granted by the Government in
his favour. The plaintiff constructed a house and started
residing in the same along with his family members by
paying necessary tax regularly. The fact being so, the
defendant without having any right, title or interest over
the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the
suit schedule property. The learned counsel further
submits that the plaintiff has produced the records to
establish his possession over the suit schedule property.
Both the Courts below have not properly considered the
documents produced by the plaintiff and committed error
in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these
grounds, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prays to
allow the appeal.
9. Perused the records and considered the
submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, was
examined himself as P.W.1, and he reiterated the plaint
averments in the examination-in-chief and proved that the
suit schedule property was granted by the Government in his
favour. The plaintiff has produced 29 documents as Ex.P.1 to
P29. The plaintiff also examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 2
and 3 to establish his possession over the suit schedule
property. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to
P.W.1 that the plaintiff lodged a complaint to the
jurisdictional police and municipality, stating that the
defendant had illegally tress passed into the suit schedule
property. The said suggestion was admitted by the plaintiff.
11. In rebuttal, the defendant has examined himself
as D.W.1, and he reiterated the written statement
averments made in the examination-in-chief, and to
prove the possession over the suit schedule property,
he produced 26 documents as Ex.D.1 to D26. Ex.D.22 is
the certified copy of the order passed by the
Municipal Authority which discloses that the
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
defendant's mother was in possession of the suit schedule
property. Further, the defendant has also produced a
certified copy of the complaint marked as Ex.D.25 wherein
the plaintiff admitted that the defendant has illegally
trespassed over the suit schedule property and acquired
the said property. In view of Ex.D.25, which clearly
discloses that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit
schedule property. Further, the plaintiff has not pleaded in
the plaint that when did the defendant's mother vacated
and handed over the possession of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff has failed to establish that he is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as
of the date of institution of the suit.
12. It is settled law that in a suit for permanent
injunction, the Court is required to consider the
possession, over the suit schedule property as on the date
of institution of the suit and alleged interference. As
observed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is
in possession of the suit schedule property. When the
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property,
the question of interference by the defendant, does not
arise.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is
of the opinion that both the Courts below have
concurrently recorded the findings of the facts that the
plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property
and passed the impugned judgment. Hence, I do not find
any errors in the impugned judgments passed by the
Courts below or any substantial questions of law that arise
for consideration, in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. The judgments and decree passed by the
Courts below are hereby confirmed.
iii. No order as to the cost.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9381
In view of the dismissal of the main appeal,
I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
JS
