IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.733 OF 2014

Between:

1. H.R. Devaraju

s/o Ramaiah

56 years

2. Munishamappa

s/o Byrappa

aged about 71 years

both are residents of Matnahalli village

Sugtur Hobli

Kolar Taluk – 562 101

…Appellants

(by Shri G. Papi Reddy, Advocate)

And:

Rathnamma

W/o Ramachandrappa

Aged about 46 years

Matnahalli village

Sugutur Hobli

Kolar Taluk 562 101

…Respondent

(by Shri Krishnamurthy C.R., Advocate)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree

2

dated 19.03.2014 passed in RA No.42/2011 on the file of the I

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar dismissing the appeal and

confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011 passed in

OS No.170 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge,

Kolar.

This appeal coming on for further hearing, this day, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Appellants who are the defendants in Original Suit No.170

of 2008, have preferred this Second Appeal challenging the

judgment and decree dated 19^th March, 2014 passed by I

Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kolar in Regular Appeal No.42 of

2011, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24^th January,

2011 passed in Original Suit No.170 of 2008 by the II Additional

Civil Judge at Kolar, came to be confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are

referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff claims to be

the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property,

which is a vacant site, bearing janjar No.258 and Sl.No.258 of

Sugutur Grama Panchayath. It is further stated in the plaint that

3

the

said

site

was

granted

to

the

plaintiff’s

mother-

Munichowdamma as per hakku patra dated 08^th May, 1975 and

thereafter, the mother of the plaintiff was exercising her right

and ownership over the suit property and also in physical

possession over the suit property. Pursuant to the death of her

mother, plaintiff succeeded to the estate of the deceased and is

in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further stated

in the plaint that the defendants, without any right, title or

interest over the suit schedule property, have interfered with the

same and thereby, the defendants have tried to trespass into the

property belonging to the plaintiff, inter alia tried to put up

construction of a compound wall on the eastern and southern

sides of the suit schedule property and thereby the plaintiff

resisted the claim made by the defendants. However, since the

defendants have not stopped illegal act of construction of

compound wall, the plaintiff has filed suit in Original Suit No.170

of 2008 on the file of the Second Additional Civil Judge at Kolar

for relief of permanent injunction. After service of summons, the

defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written

statement denying the plaint averments. It is the case of

4

defendants that defendants have purchased three schedule

properties, viz. (a) a vacant site bearing khata No.10 janjar

No.239 measuring 56 x 35 feet; (b) khata No.195 januar No.240

measuring 104 x 76 feet; and (c) khata No.195/1, janjar No.241

measuring 37 x 74 feet from one M.C. Somappa and his sons of

Matnahalli village under a registered sale deed dated 29^th

November, 2003 for valuable consideration. It is the further

case of the defendants that the description of the plaint schedule

is not correct and thereby the defendants have disputed the title

of the plaintiff in entirety and accordingly sought for dismissal of

the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court has

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves her possession over

the suit property as on the