IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.367/2021 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1 . MR. VITTAL MANIAPPA POOJARY S/O. LATE MANIAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT “PRATHIMA NIVAS”

LOWER BENDORE, 3^RD CROSS MANGALURU-575 002 (DK). … APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . MR. CHANDRAHAS M., S/O. PADMANABHA P, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT DHRUV DOOR NO.4-5-II, SHABARI TRAVELS MULLAKADU, KAVOOR MANGALURU-575 015 (DK).

2 . MR. MANJAPPA SHETTY @ MANOHAR SHETTY S/O. SHEENA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

3 . MR. SUDARSHAN SHETTY S/O. RAMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

4 . MR. RAMACHANDRA CHOWTA S/O. SHAMBU CHOWTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

5 . MR. ARUN KUMAR HEGDE S/O. LATE SHANKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE ALL R/AT PADAVU MEGINA MANE KULASHEKAR POST MANGALURU-575 005 (DK).

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.91/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU, D.K., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.172/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND C/c OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K.

THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.10.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. This second appeal is filed challenging the divergent finding of the First Appellate Court in reversing the finding of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.172/2014 and prays that this Court be pleased to allow the regular second appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.91/2019 and restore the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.172/2014.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.172/2014 while seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men and their servants from interfering with lawful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff in respect of ‘A’ schedule property is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner having mulgeni right and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the converted/non-agricultural immovable property. The ‘A’

schedule property is the vacant land and it is enclosed by compound wall towards the north and on the western side. Towards the north of the ‘A’ schedule property, the property is owned by one late Mohammed Yunous and a shed is constructed by him. Towards the west, there exists property belonging to Academy of Carrier Guidance Corporation Trust and towards the east, there is a private road leading to Shree Subramanya Bhajana Mandir. The plaintiff further stated that he has purchased ‘A’ schedule property from Sri P. Kishore Kumar as per registered sale deed dated 03.03.2007. The plaintiff further stated that prior to the sale, the ‘A’ schedule property had been got converted by one Sri B. Padmaraj as per the order of the Tahsildar, Mangaluru dated 24.09.1988. The Corporation khata relating to the ‘A’ schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is presently working abroad i.e., Iran. The Power of Attorney Holder, the wife is the plaintiff, who filed the present suit. On 13.02.2014, the plaintiff’s attorney had casually gone to the ‘A’ schedule property for inspection. At that time, some labourers were stacking laterite stones inside the ‘A’ schedule property. On enquiry, the plaintiff was informed that they were engaged by the defendants and those labourers have informed that property belongs to defendant Nos.1 to 4 and they had sold a portion of the same to defendant No.5 and to segregate the portions so so