IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2013 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

S G CHANNABASAPPA S/O. H.G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

1. CHAITRA W/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT SHAMANUR Digi tally DAVANAGERE.

signed by SUNITHA K S Location:

HIGH COURT 2. S.G. VEDAMURTHY OF KARNATAKA S/O.H.G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. DAVANAGERE CITY, SHAMANUR - 577 005 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B M HALASWAMY .,ADVOCATE FOR A1(A)

SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

AND:

1. P. NAGARAJ S/O P. NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

2. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O POOJARI NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O SHAMANUR EXTENSION DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 001.

…RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 22.03.2025 APPEAL DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R2 SRI. SHARATH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 14.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 21.11.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.255/2004 THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE.

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

1. This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2013 passed in R.A. No.22 of 2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court: The appellants were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

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

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a partition between plaintiff No.1, his father, and plaintiff No.2 and one Basavarajappa. To perform the marriage of daughter of plaintiff No.2, i.e., Meenakshi and to repay hand loan, the plaintiffs executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants on 19.12.2002 and on the same day, they got executed a consent agreement from the defendants and as per the consent agreement, they agreed to advance ₹6,00,000/- to the plaintiffs, for which the plaintiffs executed a nominal sale deed as a security and the same is admitted by the defendants in the consent agreement.

5. It is contended that the plaintiffs inspite of the execution of a sale deed by them, the possession of the suit schedule property continued with them and they are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

6. Defendant No.1 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for permanent injunction.

7. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs have executed a registered sale deed dated 19.12.2002 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to them. It is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property under the said registered sale deed and the names of the defendants are appearing in the revenue records. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for mere permanent injunction without seeking for the relief of declaration of title and possession is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, pray to dismiss the suit.

8. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that, they are in lawfu