IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH 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

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 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 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 substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, exa