IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1635 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

M.C. HIREMANI,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI,

DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. GUNDAMMA,

W/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

HOUSEWIFE,

R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL,

Digitally signed OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI,

by DEVIKA M

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

2. SRI. LOKESH,

KARNATAKA

S/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

3. SRI. SRIDHARA,

S/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA,

BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

4. KUM. LEELAVATHI, D/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

5. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KARTHIK S. TAYUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. MURALI, S/O LATE JAYADEVA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TARIKERE ROAD, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.09.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.319/2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.

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, it is contented that he has purchased the property measuring 10 x 50 feet in land bearing Sy.No.222/2, bearing site No.7 and assessment No.1503 from one S.Kotaiah on 27.08.1993. The CMC, Bhadravathi had given the possession of the said property after receiving the fee. The CMC, Bhadravathi had issued assessment register to the plaintiff pertaining to the property measuring 20 x 50 feet. The defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and defendant No.1 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant No.1 vehemently contended that the original owner S. Kotaiah was the owner of the property measuring 30 x 50 feet, which comprised a Mangalore tiled house. Out of which, the plaintiff had purchased the land measuring 10 x 50 feet and the mother of this defendant by name Rama Bai had purchased the land measuring 10 x 50 feet and another person by name Tulsi Bai had purchased the land measuring 10 x 50 feet. Towards the eastern side of the property purchased by the plaintiff, there is a channel road and the plaintiff with an intention to grab the public road, illegally constructed the house. Against the illegality of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 had filed an application before the CMC, Bhadravathi. The Engineers of the CMC, Bhadravathi have visited the spot and found that the plaintiff had encroached 10 x 32 feet of the Government land. The Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga also directed the CMC, Bhadravathi to take action against the illegal construction. That on 30.04.2013, CMC, Bhadravathi had issued notice to the plai