The present appeal is preferred by the defendants

assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2015 in RA

No.3/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur

confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2013 in OS

No.67/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur,

whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has

been decreed and the defendants herein are permanently

restrained from cutting ‘Honne tree’ situated at point ‘G’ shown

in the hand sketch attached annexed to the plaint.

2.

Parties herein are referred to as per their rankings

before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3.

The plaintiff filed suit for the relief of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon

the property and cutting the ’Honne tree’ standing at ‘G’ point

mentioned in the hand sketch of the plaint, it is averred in the

plaint that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of ABCD

area and defendant’s property is towards the western side

shown as CDEF to the sketch annexed to the plaint and

between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant there is

- 4 -

a CD line which divides the property and in the property of the

plaintiff there is a canal shown as XY towards the western side

and to the northern side of the canal there is a “Honne Tree” at

point ‘G’ and the same is mentioned in the RTC extract

pertaining to the plaintiff’s property since 1991 and that the

defendants without any right, title and interest is claiming right

over the “Honne Tree” and in the guise of cutting the tree in

the property of defendant he is trying to cut the “Honne Tree”

which is in possession and ownership of the plaintiff and thus

sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from

cutting the “Honne Tree”.

The defendant appeared and filed their written

statements contending that the defendant is having a ’Honne

tree’ and Mango tree and other trees in his property and he is

cutting other trees which are in possession and ownership of

the defendant. It is contended that the defendant is the owner

of RS No.36 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas and the defendant is

in possession of the “Honne Tree” as shown at point ‘T’ in the

hand sketch annexed to the written statement which is towards

the eastern side of his property. It is further contended that he

is the absolute owner in possession of the “Honne Tree” and his

- 5 -

name is mentioned in the RTC and that the plaintiff without

having any right, interest and title over the said tree has filed

the suit without any cause of action and sought for dismissal of

the suit.

The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings,

evidence and material on record held that the plaintiff has

proved the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit “Honne

Tree” as on the date of the filing of the suit.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial

Court the defendants preferred RA No.3/2014 before the lower

appellate Court, in the appeal filed by the defendants the lower

appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material and evidence

on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court

and held that the plaintiff has proved that he is in possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule “Honne Tree”. Aggrieved by

the judgment and decree of the Courts below the defendants

have preferred this appeal.

7.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. P.G.

Mogali for admission and though the respondent Nos.1 and 2

have been served they have remained absent.

- 6 -

8.

In addition to the various contentions urged by the

learned counsel for the appellants, it is contended that the

Courts below have not considered the documentary evidence

produced by the defendants to show the fact that the “Honne

Tree” is situated in the property of the defendants and the

same finds place in the RTC records of the defendants property

and the plaintiffs without having any right over the “Honne

Tree” has included and mentioned the same in the RTC of the

plaintiffs proper