IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. B.V. VISHALA W/O B. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

2. B. VEERANNA S/O B BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 4609/40, 'B' BLOCK, 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS DAVANGERE - 57 004.

…APPELLANTS Digitally signed by AL (BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)

BHAGYA Location:

AND:

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA B.N. NAGARAJ S/O NARAHARISHET, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KIRAN CHAMBERS, SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHAR - 577 516.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED10.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.257/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DAVANGERE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff despite the Trial Court granting a perpetual injunction against the defendants by judgment and decree dated 10.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.257/2009.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.257/2009 seeking the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.24/1P. It is their specific case that the original extent of the survey number measures 6 acres 13 guntas and that they have acquired right, title and interest over an extent of 1 acre out of the said land under a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2000 and a subsequent registered gift deed. The plaintiffs assert absolute ownership over the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre. It is further averred that on 07.11.2002 the defendant, with an oblique motive, attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property along with his associates and caused damage to the temple constructed therein as well as to the water tank, thereby giving rise to the cause of action for the suit.

3. On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement, denying the material averments in the plaint. Though the defendant did not seriously dispute the plaintiffs’ title over the extent claimed, he stoutly denied the allegations of interference, trespass and encroachment. It was contended that the suit was devoid of cause of action and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. Both parties were afforded full opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiffs examined themselves and produced documents in support of their case; the defendant also entered the witness box and relied upon documentary evidence in rebuttal.

5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court answered the material issues in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established their ownership over the suit schedule property and had also proved the alleged acts of damage. However, while decreeing the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, the Trial Court restricted the relief of injunction on the eastern side of the plaintiffs’ property only up to the stone slab and declined to grant injunction beyond the said stone slab wall.

6. Aggrieved by the restriction imposed on the grant of perpetual injunction to the limited extent indicated above, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. Perused the records. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

(i) Whether the learned Trial Judge, having granted the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction, was justified in restricting the injunction on the eastern side only up to the stone slab of