Karnataka High Court
Sri. Murugesh vs Sri. Yankanaika on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
RSA No. 179 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN
SRI. MURUGESH
S/O GOPALAPPA
AGED 57 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O HOSAJOGA
HONNALI TALUK-577 217,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO)
AND
1 . SRI. YANKANAIKA
S/O SANNAKESHYANAIKA
AGED 56 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed by R/O HOSAJOGA (TANDA)
PANKAJA S
HONNALI TALUK-577 217
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA
2 . A.K. LOKAPPA
S/O UDDANANDI NANDYAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O A.K. COLONY,
HALEGOGA VILLAGE
HONNALI TALUK-577 217
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
RSA No. 179 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED IN RA NO
04/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HARIHAR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2016 PASSED IN
OS.NO.212/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 05.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against
the defendants - Yankanaika and A.K.Lokappa restraining them
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that his father-Gopalappa was
in possession and unauthorised cultivation of land measuring 4
acres in Sy.No.66/H situated at Gundichatnahalli Village,
Honnali Taluk with the boundaries i.e., East-land of Somla
Naika, West-land of Nagendrappa and Ismail Sab, North-
Channal and South-land of Nagabhushan Horegoppa,
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
HC-KAR
Somashekarappa, Parvathamma, Lokappa and Yenkyanaika
and others (for brevity, "the suit schedule property"), since
1961-62 onwards and since 1982-83, the plaintiff was in
possession of the same along with his father and in column
No.12 of RTC, the name of the plaintiff was entered for the year
1982-83 to 84-85. As such, the plaintiff had applied to the
Government for regularization of unauthorised cultivation,
which is pending consideration.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that his father in the
year 1985 had filed O.S.No.52/1985 seeking permanent
injunction against one Ashraft Alikhan, which was decreed on
23.11.1985. Thereafter, the plaintiff had also filed
O.S.No.272/2000 seeking permanent injunction against
Parvathamma, Jayappa and Somashekharappa which was
decreed on 20.09.2004.
5. Subsequently, on 26.10.2009, the defendants, having no
manner of right, title or interest over the suit scheduled
property, interfered with the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff filed the present suit in
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
HC-KAR
O.S.No.212/2009 seeking permanent injunction against the
defendants.
6. Defendant No.2, having contested the matter by filing
written statement, denied the plaint averments contending that
land in Sy.No.66/H totally measures 164 acres 12 guntas and it
is a government forest land and the plaintiff was not in actual
possession of the suit schedule property and it was defendant
No.2 who was in unauthorised cultivation of the suit schedule
property.
7. The Trial Court, having considered the rival pleadings of
both the parties, framed relevant issues and after examining
the evidence and material produced, dismissed the suit on the
ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove his actual
possession over the suit schedule property and as such,
question of interference by the defendants had become
irrelevant.
8. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, on
re-appreciation of evidence and materials on record, dismissed
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
HC-KAR
the appeal concurring with the findings of the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
9. I have heard Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for
the plaintiff/appellant. The defendants/respondents though
served have remained unrepresented.
10. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff is that when the suits filed in O.S.Nos.52/1985 and in
O.S.No.272/2000 by his father and himself respectively have
been decreed in their favour granting permanent injunction in
respect of very same suit schedule property by recording the
finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule
property, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
have failed to consider the said aspect and on the other hand,
erred in holding that the said decrees were not binding since
the same were passed by the Court of Junior Division. He
further contended that though the boundaries of the suit
schedule property in O.S.Nos.52/1985 and O.S.No.272/2000
were same as in the present suit i.e., O.S.No.212/2009 and
that the defendants' property is situated in the northern side of
the suit schedule property and their interference has been
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
HC-KAR
proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, both the Courts have
also failed to consider the said aspect. As such, the plaintiff is
entitled for grant of permanent injunction. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and
perused the materials on record.
12. This Court while admitting this appeal, has framed the
following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether findings by Court of facts is
vitiated by non-consideration of
relevant evidence on record or by
essentially wrong approach?
2. Whether the Court of facts erred in
law in overlooking Ex.P2 and Ex.P3?
3. Whether the Court of facts erred in
law in holding that the decree
passed in O.S.No.52/1985 and
O.S.No.272/2000 are not binding on
the Court which squarely evidences
the possession of the appellant over
the suit land?
13. As could be gathered from records, the plaintiff has filed
application seeking regularization of his possession and
unauthorised cultivation of suit schedule property in the year
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
HC-KAR
1985 and the same is pending for consideration. Further,
Sy.No.66/H is a vast extent of land and the plaintiff's father in
O.S.No.52/1985 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.272/2000 sought
permanent injunction in respect of very same suit schedule
property with the very same boundaries as in the present suit
i.e., O.S.No.212/2009. The Trial Court in both the suits i.e., in
O.S.No.52/1985 and O.S.No.272/2000 had granted permanent
injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering
with the peaceful possession of suit schedule property by the
plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff has been in peaceful
possession of suit schedule property. Further, on perusal of the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, all these witnesses have categorically
deposed that the defendants, who were residing in the northern
portion of suit schedule property made an attempt to interfere
with the peaceful possession of suit schedule property by the
plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional
police for suitable action. However, the jurisdictional police did
not take any action on the ground that the dispute between the
plaintiff and the defendants is of civil nature. The finding of the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff failed
to prove his title in accordance with law and as such, he is not
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
HC-KAR
entitled for relief of injunction does not hold good for the simple
reason that this Court and the Apex Court in catena of
judgments held that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the
person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his
possession and in order to protect such possession, he may
even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. In the
absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful
settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the
possession to go with the title unless rebutted.
14. Further, since the judgments and decrees passed in
O.S.No.52/1985 and O.S.No.272/2000 squarely evidenced the
possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, both
the Courts have failed to consider the said aspect in respect of
possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
15. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law are
answered in the "affirmative". Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:45736
HC-KAR
ii) The impugned judgments and
decrees passed in
O.S.No.212/2009 and
R.A.No.4/2017 are set aside.
iii) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed
granting permanent injunction
against the defendants
restraining them from interfering
with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule
property by the plaintiff.
iv) It is made clear that this
judgment shall not come in the
way of the Committee for
Regularization of Unauthorised
Cultivation, where the
application filed by the plaintiff
seeking regularization of his
unauthorised cultivation is
pending for consideration, while
considering the said application.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
