IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JAYARAMU, S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. YADUNANDAN .N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. M RAMU, S/O M G MYLARSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1319, KRISHNAMURTHY PURAM, Digitally signed by PADMASH REE MYSURU-570 004.

SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High 2. SRI SIDDARAJU, Court Of S/O SIDDEGOWDA, Karnatka AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018.

3. SRI DASHARATHA, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018.

4. SRI ANDANI, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 018.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ .R, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED IN RA NO. 146/2021 (OLD RA NO.169/2020) ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2020 PASSED IN OS.No.336/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, MYSURU.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for appellant and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court.

3. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction.

The plaintiff in the suit while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, contended that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property i.e. site carved out in Sy.No. 89/2 having Junger No.535/A Hootagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

4. The plaintiff had purchased the said property on

02.05.2013 from Sri.Nandakumar. Sri.NandaKumar has purchased the same from his previous vendor Sri.K. Doreswamy. Sri.K. Doreswamy had purchased the same from one Smt.Sakamma, who is the first defendant. Khata of the suit schedule property has been registered in Koorgalli Grama Panchayath and now stands in the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff has been enjoying the said property without any interference. The first defendant was the owner of Sy.No.89/2 situated at Hootagalli Village and she had formed a residential layout in the said land and converted the said land into residential sites and sold the said sites to several persons including vendor of the plaintiff. Second plaintiff is the registered power of attorney holder of the first defendant. Third defendant is the wife of the defendant No.2. Further, defendant Nos.4 to 8 are the children of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 who have no right, title or possession over the suit sale property, on 30.04.2007 came near the suit schedule property at 11.00 a.m. and started to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff resisted the illegal act of the defendant and immediately plaintiff approached the local police and lodged the complaint. The police refused to receive the complaint and advised to go to Civil Court and also defendants have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, for not interfering with their peaceful possession. Even though site owners have put up a construction that defendants have no right, title or possession of the suit schedule property, with a sole intention to have illegal claim, they tried to interfere with possession of the property and hence filed the suit for permanent injunction.

5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants appeared and defendant No.6 has filed written statement denying the averment