##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13270

RSA No. 493 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.493 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

KADARAIAH

S/O.LATE SIDDAIAH

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

R/AT THARUR GOLLARAHATTY

KALLAMBELLA HOBLI

SIRA TALUK

TUMKUR DISRICT-572 125

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI T.V.SATHEESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SANNACHITHAIAH

S/O.LATE KARECHITHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

2. SMT.THIMMAKKA

W/O.LATE BADACHITHAIAH

Digitally AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

signed by B

LAVANYA 3. CHIKKAMMANNI

Location: D/O.LATE BADACHITHAIAH

HIGH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 4. JYOTHI

D/O.LATE BADACHITHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

5. CHANDRAIAH

S/O.LATE KARECHITHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13270

RSA No. 493 of 2025

HC-KAR

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

THARUR GOLLARAHATTI

KALLAMBELLA HOBLI

SIRA TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 125

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIVEK S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.35/2017

BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, DISMISSING

THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED 10.08.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.100/2008 BY THE

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging

the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2024 passed in

RA.No.35/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2017

passed in O.S.No.100/2008 by the Additional Civil Judge

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13270

RSA No. 493 of 2025

HC-KAR

and JMFC, Sira, where the suit for permanent injunction

came to be decreed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.

2. Though this Court has not yet issued notice to the

respondents, Sri Vivek S., learned counsel has filed

vakalath on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. The same is

accepted.

3. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking

before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the

absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property bearing No.242/1 measuring 1 acre,

Taroor Village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk. It is the

further case of the plaintiffs that the property belonged to

one Siddaiah, S/o.Kadaraiah and the said Siddaiah sold

the property in favour of the plaintiffs' father by name,

Karichittaiah, S/o.Emmigaiah through a registered sale

deed dated 25.06.1963.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13270

RSA No. 493 of 2025

HC-KAR

4.1 Based on the said sale deed, mutation was

effected in favour of the plaintiffs' father in MR No.6/1963-

64. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that pursuant to the

sale deed, mutation entries are changed in the name of

the father of the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded that the

plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property. Pursuant to the death of the father

of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the said property and the names of the

plaintiffs are mutated in MR.No.5/1992-93. The plaintiffs

have been paying tax to the concerned authorities and

they are growing crops every year without any

interference. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the

defendant, who has no right, title or interest over the suit

schedule property is interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit

schedule property. Hence, they filed a suit for permanent

injunction against the defendants.

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13270

RSA No. 493 of 2025

HC-KAR

4.2 Upon summons being issued in the suit to the

defendant, the defendant appeared and filed written

statement denying the averments made by the plaintiffs.

4.3 On the basis of the pleadings and rival

contentions made by both the parties, the trial Court

framed the following issues for consideration:

"1. Whether

Click Here to Read the rest of this document