IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1503 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI INNAYATHULLA, S/O LATE ABDUL SHUKOOR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A KOMBAGUDDE, MALLAR VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

…APPELLANT [BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR R H., ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

1. SRI SHAMEEM AHMED, Digitally signed by S/O SABU SAHEB, GEETHAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PARLATTAYA S Location: Hi gh R/A KOMBAGUDDE, Court of MALLAR VILLAGE AND POST, Karnataka UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

LATE AMEER ADAM, (SINCE DECEASED IS REP BY LRs FROM 2 TO 7)

2. SMT. NOORUNISSA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SRI PARVEZ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SRI FAZILATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. SMT. FARIYAL BANU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 6. SMT. FAMIA BANU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 7. SRI MOHAMMED FAZIL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO. 2 TO 7 ARE R/A AA MANZIL, NEAR KOMBAGUDDE MAZID, MALLAR VILLAGE, KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.48/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.412/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and decree dated 26.06.2025 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi, in RA no.48/2024 and judgment and decree dated 28.06.2024 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, in OS no.412/2015, this second appeal is filed.

2. Sri RH Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by plaintiff in OS no.412/2015 filed for mandatory injunction directing defendant no.1 to surrender vacant possession of North-Eastern portion of plaint 'A' schedule property ('suit property', for short) by removing encroachment and construction made thereon within time to be fixed by Court etc.

3. It was submitted, in plaint, it was stated, suit property originally belonged to Rathnakar Shetty of Mallaru village and plaintiff purchased it from him under registered Sale Deed dated 18.08.2005 and after obtaining building licence, plaintiff constructed house bearing Door no.2-56 in it and was in lawful possession. It was further stated, on South-Western side of suit property, there existed PWD road running from Kaup to Shirva. And defendant no.1 had purchased property through defendant no.2 on North-Eastern side of suit property, behind plaintiff's house, who had knowledge about existence of 4 cents of property of plaintiff and yet assisted him in putting up compound wall. Thereafter, defendant no.1 had constructed a house on North-Eastern side of suit property without leaving any set-back on four sides as prescribed and in course of same had encroached on plaintiff extent of 4 cents on North-Eastern side of plaint 'A' schedule property.

4. And when defendant no.1 was questioned on encroachment, same was denied. Therefore, plaintiff got measured his property through Surveyor, which revealed encroachment of 4 cents belonging to plaintiff. Despite demand to demolish construction on encroached portion, defendant no.1 failed to comply. On other hand, defendant erected PVC pipe connection on South-Eastern side of his house for draining rainwater and caused water to fall upon wall/premises of plaintiff causing inconvenience and damage. A representation was submitted before PDO, Mallaru Panchayat seeking action, but no steps were taken. Hence, stating that cause of action arose on 03.07.2015 and subsequently, when defendant no.1 refused to remove alleged encroachment, suit was filed.

5. On appearance, defendants filed written statement denying plaint averments. Defendant no.1 stated, that he was bonafide purchaser of 'B' schedul