IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.984 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. THERESA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE LOURDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.81, ANANDAPURA, K.R.PURAM POST, BENGALURUE-560 036.

2. SMT. AGNES, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O LATE LOURDAPPA, RESIDING AT SANNATHAMMANAHALLI, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 036.

Digitally signed …APPELLANTS by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH (BY SMT. ANURADHA URS M.D., ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. SMT. PARVATHI POLAVARAPU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O SRI. SAMBASIVA RAO POLAVARAPU, R/AT NO.C2-18, SOUTH AVENUE, I.T.I TOWNSHIP, DOORVANI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.04.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.437/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The suit is filed for the relief of bare injunction in respect of three items of the suit schedule properties as agricultural properties. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit and there is interference by the defendant. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit schedule property has lost its agricultural character long back and sites have been formed and same were sold to several persons by the parents of the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the admission on the part of P.W.1, which is discussed in paragraph No.43, comes to the conclusion that the father of the plaintiffs, namely Lourdappa died on 27.02.1979 and also taken note of the sale deeds and observed that if the sale deeds are taken into consideration, it can be said that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, he himself sold some sites in favour of different purchasers on different dates. The above said sites are part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.48/1. In the cross- examination of P.W.1, only answer was given by P.W.1 that she was not aware regarding the conversion of the land bearing Sy.No.48/1 from agricultural into non-agricultural purpose. However, in the plaint itself the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiffs have stopped cultivation of suit schedule property and the same is not cultivable. This admission was taken note of by the Trial Court while coming to the conclusion that during the lifetime of the plaintiffs’ father, he had sold some of sites in the said survey number and after his death, his wife and sons have also sold certain sites in Sy.No.48/1 to different purchasers.

4. The Trial Court also taken note of that the plaintiffs have obtained a decree in O.S.No.697/2007 in respect of suit schedule properties herein measuring 4 acres. In the present suit, the plaintiffs have not submitted documents to show 4 acres land standing in the name of the plaintiffs or their father. Ex.P.4 goes to show that the land bearing Sy.No.48/2A is standing in the name of Smt. Savithramma W/o Nagaraj and one Jacob S/o Rayappa. In the plaint or in the oral evidence of P.W.1, nowhere it is stated that how did the name of above said persons are reflecting in ROR of above said survey numbers. The Trial Cou