IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2013 (INJ-)

BETWEEN:

1. MAHADEVAPPA AGED 50 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA

2. MAHESHA AGED 26 YEARS Digitally signed by S/O MAHADEVAPPA SUNITHA K S Location:

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H R RENUKA., ADV.)

AND:

SUMBRAMANYA AGED 59 YEARS S/O SUBBEGOWDA R/AT HUNASEKUPPE VILLAGE KASSABA HOBLI H D KOTE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571125 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH G P., ADV.)

RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 29.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.312/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNSUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 2.3.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.107/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) H.D.KOTE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012 passed in R.A.No.312/2009 by the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1975 for a valuable consideration, and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The name of the plaintiff appear in the revenue records, and the plaintiff is paying the land revenue of the suit schedule property. It is contended that on 18.05.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., the defendants made an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to cause any obstruction or interference over the suit schedule property. Despite request made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contented that the suit schedule property was purchased by the father in the name of the plaintiff, and it is contented that the plaintiff was hardly aged 22 years old at the time of purchase. The suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants and as per the family decision which took place on 05.03.1991, the suit property fell to the share of the defendants. It is also contented that the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment upon the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2) Whether plaintiff proves the unlawful interference?

3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?

4) What order or decree?

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1, examined 2 witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3, and marked 7 documents as Exs.D1 to D7. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative, and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs vide ju