Karnataka High Court
Nagaraja Bhatta vs Rajendra G V on 21 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
RSA No. 595 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.595 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARAJA BHATTA
S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. GIRISH
S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
3. RAMESH
S/O DEWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
4. BHASKAR BHATTA
S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
Location: HIGH 5. PRABHAKAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
6. NATESH
S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT GUNDIGA
MARAGALALE VILLAGE
GUDDEKOPPA POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK 577432
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ASHWATH C.M, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
RSA No. 595 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. RAJENDRA G V
S/O VASOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT GUNDIGA
MARAGALALE VILLAGE
GUDDEKOPPA POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK 577432
2. VENKATESH
S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT GUNDIGA
MARAGALALE VILLAGE
GUDDEKOPPA POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK 577432
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2022
PASSED IN R.A. No.43/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
RSA No. 595 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
counsel appearing for the appellants.
3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the
Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction is
that the suit schedule property was granted land in Sy.No.60 to
the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas which is morefully described in
the schedule. It is contended that the plaintiff is residing in the
said properties since long ago. Before granting the land, he had
filed Form No.53 for confirmation of the same under the
scheme of Bhagar Hukum and Saguvali Chit was also issued on
31.10.2012 and boundaries of the said property is also
described in respect of the property i.e., the Sy.No.60. The
property is also phoded and renumber was given as Sy.No.80.
Though the defendants have no manner of right, title over the
suit schedule property, causing interference over the suit
schedule property. In pursuance of suit summons, the
defendants appeared and filed the written statement
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
HC-KAR
contending that the averments made in the plaint is false and
totally denied the filing of Form No.53 and granting of the same
in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants also claim that they
are in possession and enjoyment of the property and also given
the schedule.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record in respect of the claim
made by the plaintiff as well as the claim made by the
defendants taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of
witnesses. In paragraph 11, the case of the plaintiff and also
the cross-examination and answer elicited from the mouth of
PW1 was extracted and so also in paragraph 13, the case of the
defendants also taken note of and comes to the conclusion that
the documents produced by the plaintiff i.e., RTCs, revenue
sketch, phodi sketch and Akarband are able to establish the
location, boundaries and extent of the suit schedule property
and also shows the possession of he plaintiff over the suit
schedule property. Hence, accepted the case of the plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
HC-KAR
The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that both the
properties are different. The Trial Court also taken note of the
answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 in the cross-
examination that the phodi work of the plaintiff was not
questioned by the defendants and they have also not
challenged the revenue entries which are stand in the name of
the plaintiff. They have also no documents to prove the
boundaries of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.60 and also admits that
3 acres of land was not made permanent in favour of his father
and after his death, in the name of the defendant. Having taken
note of the same, in paragraph 26, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that suit schedule property is in the possession of
the plaintiff, thus, granted the relief of permanent injunction.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,
an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First
Appellate Court considering the grounds which have been urged
in the appeal, formulated the points that whether the Trial
Court is right in holding that the plaintiff has made out a case
proving that he is in possession of the property and whether
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
HC-KAR
interference. The First Appellate Court having considered both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of
the case of the plaintiff in paragraphs 16 to 18 and also taken
note of admission on the part of DW1 in the cross-examination.
The First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that the land
was granted in favour of plaintiff under Bhagar Hukum scheme
and defendants have not questioned the revenue documents
and also taken note of claim made by the defendants and
comes to the conclusion that the defendants claims only
temporary occupation and permanent grant was not made in
favour of the defendants and no documents are placed to
establish their possession to the extent of 3 acres is concerned.
In paragraph 28, taken note of the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner. In
paragraph 29 also comes to the conclusion that boundaries
prevail over the extent and boundary also taken note of. In
paragraph 31 taken note of Ex.P1 and P3 as they specify the
boundaries to the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas upon which the
plaintiff claims to have possession of the property and as Ex.D3
which relies upon the defendants does not show boundaries but
the measurement of the property though has been specifically
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
HC-KAR
pleaded on the basis of it. But in order to prove the boundaries,
defendants have not placed any material and considering the
same, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both
the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellants in this second appeal is that both the Courts
have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent
injunction in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has
established his possession over the suit schedule property even
though the same is disputed. The counsel also would contend
that revenue authorities have remanded the matter to the
Tahsildar for fresh survey and both the Courts have not
justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff since the
application for grant by defendants' father was pending before
the concerned authority. Hence, this Court has to admit the
appeal and frame substantial question of law.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also on perusal of the material on record as well as the
reasoning of both the Courts, it is very clear that the land was
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
HC-KAR
granted in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of 1 acre 15
guntas and the revenue documents also supports the case of
the plaintiff. The categorical admission of DW1 that he did not
challenge the revenue documents of the plaintiff. Apart from
that not disputing the grant made in favour of the plaintiff.
Thus, the fact clearly discloses that Form No.53 was filed by the
plaintiff and thereafter the committee considered the claim of
the plaintiff. Hence, the documents clearly establish the
possession of the plaintiff. Based on both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, both the Courts come to the
conclusion that plaintiff has established his possession. Apart
from that both the Courts taken note of the fact that no
boundary documents are placed by the defendants who claim
to the extent of 3 acres. The application filed by the defendants
also pending for consideration and not yet granted the same.
When there was a grant and the same was supported by the
documents, it clearly depicts the possession of the plaintiff.
When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit
the appeal and to frame substantial question of law since both
the question of fact and question of law are considered by both
the Courts and no perversity in the finding of both the Courts.
NC: 2025:KHC:48248
HC-KAR
Under the circumstances, no ground is made out to invoke
Section 100 of CPC.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does
not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
