IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1337 OF 2013 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O JOGAIAH AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF BARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE BASUR POST, HIRENALLUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 55548

2. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O JOGAIAH Digitally signed AGRICULTURIST by KIRAN RESIDENT OF KUMAR R BARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE Location: H IGH BASUR POST, HIRENALLUR HOBLI COURT OF KARNATAKA KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 55548 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. B K CHANDRADHARAPPA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

1(A) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 1(B) SRI. VEERENDRA S/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

1(C) SRI. RAGHU S/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE R/O BASOORU VILLAGE AND POST HIRENALLURU HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

1(D) SMT. MAMATHA W/O ANANDA D/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O CHANNAPURA VILLAGE AJJAMPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

1(E) SMT. PANKAJA W/O NAGARAJU D/O LATE CHANDRADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O HIRENALLURU VILLAGE AND POST HIRENALLURU HOBLI, KADURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. M R HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO E)] THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 14.3.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., KADUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.12.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., KADUR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2013 passed in R.A. No.1 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction, contending that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property, as the said property was purchased by the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1972. Since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against the defendants before the police. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the father of the defendants had borrowed a loan of Rs.1,000/- from the plaintiff and as a security for the loan, the registered sale deed was executed, which is a nominal sale deed. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as of the date of institution of the suit. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit against the defendants. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

7. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

8. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked six documents as Exhibits P1 to P6.

9. In