IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O. LATE RAJACHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

2. SRIKANTA, S/O. LATE RAJACHARI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.784, LALBAND STREET, HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT-571105 …APPELLANTS Digitally signed (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

by DEVIKA M Location: H IGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. SURESHACHARI, S/O. LATE SINGACHARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT RANGANATHA BADAVANE, KALKUIKE BYPASS, HUNSUR MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. ROOPESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.64/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR.

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 of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants is that he had purchased the suit schedule property on 29.12.2001 for valuable consideration of Rs.35,000/-. Since from the date of purchase, he is enjoying the suit schedule property. The documents at Exs.P.4 and 5 to 8 clearly discloses that he is in possession of the property. The defendant is making effort to interfere with the possession of the property and hence without any other alternative filed the suit and sought for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit schedule property measuring 35’ x 50’ along with a country tiled house measuring 28’ x 20’ was mortgaged in favour of one Madaiah on 17.05.1954 and then the successors in interest of the said owners mortgaged the suit schedule property and the country tiled house in favour of the defendant on 01.11.1966 with a direction to discharge the earlier mortgage. This defendant discharged the mortgage on 16.01.1971 and obtained possession of the entire property from the mortgagee including the suit schedule property. The owners of the suit property have created consequent mortgage in favour of the plaintiff on 27.03.1972, wherein they recognized the possession of the defendant of the entire mortgaged property including the suit schedule property. Thereafter, under registered sale deeds dated 16.05.1973 and 12.05.1975, executed by previous owners by names Singachari and Puttasomachari, this defendant acquired title. This defendant is having a smith workshop in the suit schedule property and all the municipal records were entered in the name of this defendant since 1977. He had also obtained licence and approved plan for construction of a building in the suit schedule property, at which point of time, this plaintiff along with the alleged vendor Sannasomachari won over the municipal authorities and got withdrew the licence issued to this defendant and also threatened of dispossessing this defendant of the suit property and as such this defendant had filed the suit in O.S.No.97/1997, which was partly decreed. Hence, an appeal in R.A.No.19/2000 was filed which was also dismissed and hence filed R.S.A.No.8/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, which matter is pending adjudication. It is contended that when the house as well as the suit schedule property was given in possession in favour of the defendant, the question of granting any relief in favour of the plaintiff does not arise.

5. The Trial Court having consid