IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

PARUVASHETTY S/O MALLAPPASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.327, JAYANAGARA EXTENSION, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN PANCHAYATH K.R PETE TOWN, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: H IGH 2. SHIVARDURAIAH COURT OF KARNATAKA S/O DODDAIAHSHETTY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 3. DHANALAKSHMI W/O K SHIVARUDRAIAH , AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 4. JAYARAMU S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5. GOVINDARAJU S/O RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT JAYANAGARA EXTENSION, K.R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2024 PASSED IN RA.NO.5033/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.139/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJPET.

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 second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

This matter is listed for admission.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff, while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in O.S. No.139/2006. It is contented that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property that, more fully described in the schedule as 8 guntas of land and that the defendants are interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.1 was placed ex-parte. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 appeared and filed their objections contending that the plaintiff had no right to alienate the suit schedule property and also not in possession of the property. It is contended that defendant No.1 formed road long back and electric poles have been erected. The plaintiff has filed a false suit with larger extent and hence, he is not entitled for the relief.

5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion based on the report of the Commissioner. Since two commissioners were appointed and the report of the first one was rejected and second Commissioner has also filed the report, which was objected by the plaintiff.

However, his contentions were not accepted and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not made out any ground to reject the Commissioner’s report.

6. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of CW2, who is the Commissioner and also the reports marked as Exs.C5 and C6 is very clear that, though as per the documents had ownership of 29 guntas in all, but in factuality had possession of 6½ guntas is less than total extent of land of 29 guntas. The land bearing Survey No.263/3 is measuring 22½ guntas as against the revenue entries of 29 quntas. He has specifically deposed that sale deed is in excess of 6½ guntas as against the survey documents.

7. Hence, it clearly transpires that vendor of the plaintiff did not have the right to alienate the property in excess, as claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property in its entirety. Without there being any possession, without the property being in existence, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership over the suit schedule property.

8. Hence, the Court answers Issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’ with regard to the interference is concerned and also comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The Court by referring the judgme