In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot re-appreciate factual findings of lower courts, and a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable if the defendant denies the plaintiff's title, requiring the plaintiff to seek a declaration of ownership.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.33/2018 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TIPTUR., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.03.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.132/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-Tiptur in RA.No.31/2018 dated 12.06.2023, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff and confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2018 passed by the C/c Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur in O.S.No.134/2014.

3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of brevity.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the say of plaintiff that originally the suit schedule property belonged to Government of Karnataka. The Tahsildar Tiptur has granted the said suit land, in favour of plaintiff under a grant certificate dated 18.03.1997. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that he is possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since from the date of grant, enjoying the same by changing the khata and other revenue entries in mutation entry number 9/2000-01.

5. He is also paying the land revenue on the suit property. It is the say of the plaintiff that the defendants have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property. Defendants started to interfere more specifically; defendant No.5 was trying to encroach on the suit schedule property and attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property to dig in the suit schedule property without any notice to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. Upon service of the summons to the defendants, a written statement was filed by defendant No.5. The other defendants adopted the written statement of defendant No.5, denied the entire plaint averments, and pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 80 of CPC and also under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act 1980.

7. It was further pleaded that the Government of Mysore sanctioned land at Chikkanayakannahally and Tiptur Taluk measuring totally 3035 acres and 01 guntas, and the same was classified as 'A', 'B' and 'C' and named Kamalapura State Reserve Forest under Government notification. No. AF9044FT 195/49-4. It is also pleaded that the entire land is in possession of the government under the control of the Forest Department.

8. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has created a grant certificate in collusion with the revenue officials without obtaining any necessary permission from the Forest Department and has attempted to encroach on the forest land. Therefore, it is pleaded that the plaintiff does not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property, which is a part and parcel of the Kamalapura reserved state forest, and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

9. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that th