IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1595 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. B.M. RUDREGOWDA S/O LATE MULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O KADVANTHI VILLAGE BOGASE POST, KHANDYA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 101.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. S.C. LATHA W/O B.M. DEVARAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M R/O KADVANTHI VILLAGE Location: HIGH BOGASE POST, KHANDYA HOBLI COURT OF CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK KARNATAKA AND DISTRICT – 577 101.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LOKANATHA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.324/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

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. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-

respondent.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant is that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That the husband of the plaintiff namely Devarajegowda had executed the gift deed with respect to the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is growing the coffee and silver trees along with other crops in the suit property. The plaintiff had also fenced the suit property. Except the plaintiff, nobody have any manner of right, title and interest over the suit property. The defendant without having any right over the property is damaging the standing crops in the suit property by letting Cattle and Buffaloes into the suit property. Even the defendant has attempted to encroach the suit property. The defendant is backed by political elements. The illegal act of the defendant is resisted by the plaintiff with great difficulty. That on 18.07.2018, the defendant and his supporters came near the property and attempted to damage the crops existed in the suit property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction, since he had lodged the complaint to police, but they have not taken any action.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement, wherein it is categorically contented that the plaintiff got created the alleged documents. Hence, plaintiff has to prove with regard to the documents and also cause of action and further contended that plaint schedule property originally belongs to younger brother of the defendant by name B.M. Prasanna and said Prasanna had acquired the said property through registered partition deed of family partition. The plaint schedule property was neither cultivated by the said Prasanna nor the plaintiff, till this date. The plaint schedule property is wet land and the said vacant land was used by all the family members of plaintiff and defendant for cattle grazing and the same is not cultivated with any crop and the same is not fenced as alleged by the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is bifurcated and it is divided by the road and Sy.Nos.187/6 and 187/7 measuring 12 guntas and 11 guntas respectively are not bounded with common boundaries as alleged and shown in the plaint and they are separate pieces of lands. The water pipe line is passed through the said suit schedule property since from long time, which was used by the defendant and other villagers for drinking water and irrigation purposes. The plaintiff in order to have the favourable order and