IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.626 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.VENKATAMUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O LATE SEENAPPA

2. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NANGALI VILLAGE, BYRAKUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563132 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI N.S.SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally SRI.PRADEEP REDDY signed by AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS MALATESH S/O ANJANEYA REDDY, K C RESIDENT OF GADDUR VILLAGE, Location:

BYRAKUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK HIGH KOLAR DISTRICT-563132 COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA (BY SRI VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED IN RA No.32/2018 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2017 PASSED IN O.S.No.360/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri N.S.Sheshadri, learned counsel for the appellants on I.A No.2/2025 filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. In I.A No.2/2025 the following prayer is made.

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit facts plaintiffs/appellants herein prays that this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the suit with the liberty to file proper suit for declaration in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. IA No.2/2025 is supported by the affidavit. The relevant portion of the affidavit supporting IA No.2/2025 is culled out hereunder for ready reference:

“3. We respectfully submit that we have filed suit for permanent injunction based on the registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.1967, and further revenue entries as per our possession of 2 Acres in Sy.No.25 of N.Venkatapura Village, Bairkur Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk. The Defendant/Respondent though served with notice, intentionally has not appeared before the Hon'ble Trial Court and not contested the matter, however our suit is dismissed. As against the same we preferred first appeal and before 1^st Appellate court the Defendant/Respondent herein appeared and filed statement of objections to our application filed under order 41 Rule 27 CPC, thereby he has taken a false contention that Sy.No.25 was re- assigned as Sy.No.52, and he is possession of 4 Acres in Old Sy.No.25, but failed to produce any documents before 1^st Appellant Court also. We respectfully submit the 1^st appellant court after hearing the arguments and objections of the Defendant/ Respondent herein, while dismissing the appeal in para No.23 of the judgment held as hereunder;

"by applying the ration decided in the matter of Anathula Sudhakar case to facts of the case, it is crystal clear that, the title of the Plaintiff is under cloud or in dispute and therefore, necessary plea the Plaintiffs will have to file for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. So far as, the_claim of the Defendant that the Plaintiffs are_not in possession of the suit schedule property_is to be ascertained only_during_course of trail of the suit would be filed by the Plaintiffs in future. In such circumstance the suit of the Plaintiffs for bare injunction is not maintainable"

4. We respectfully submit that we are illiterate and ignorant women. Our respective husbands are passed away from last 30 we have not got katha transferred in our names. We are ignorant of the process and as per our present advice we have ascertained some of the documents and came to know the false submission made by the Defendant/

Respondent herein. Even now the name of the our family member reflected in RTC extract in Sy. No. 25 (suit property). Since the Defendant without producing documents interfering with our possession and we have to secure other documents and need to file fresh case as