This second appeal challenged a decree granting permanent injunction totaling possession. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff had valid possession and the right to injunction did not depend on regularization of possession or forest land grants.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1888 OF 2008 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL., HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI MANJAIAH S/O SRI PAYAPPA, MAJOR, R/O MARABIDI, MANDAVALLI VILLAGE, ARALAGODU POST, SAGAR TALUK - 577 401.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C.B.MINAJIGI., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:38559 RSA No. 1888 of 2008
JUDGMENT
Smt.Rashmi Patel., learned HCGP for the appellants has appeared in person.
This is an appeal from the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sagar.
For convenience, the ranking of the parties shall be referred to as their rankings before the Trial Court.
2. The brief facts are these:
The plaintiff filed a suit before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Sagar in O.S.No.163/2000. He contended that his father was in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property and constructed a house. After his death, his mother continued in possession of the scheduled property. It is averred that she was under Bagar Hukum cultivation and filed an application before the Tahasildar on 07.08.1999 and the same is pending consideration. The T.T was paid to the Tahasildar. It is averred that the defendants were never in possession of the scheduled property, and they tried to obstruct and illegally evict him. Hence, he sought shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit for a permanent injunction.
After the service of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through A.G.P and filed a written statement. They contended that Sy.No.48 belongs to the Forest Department. It measures 170 Acres 14 Guntas in extent. They denied the possession of the plaintiff over the scheduled property. Among other grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. To substantiate their claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked seven documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The defendants neither led oral evidence nor furnished documents. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.2002, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the First Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 22.11.2007 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC.
NC: 2023:KHC:38559 RSA No. 1888 of 2008
Next, she submits that the Appellate Court erred in not appreciating the fact that Sy.No.48 of Mandavalli Village, Aralagodu Post, Sagar Taluk measuring 170 Acres and 14 Guntas belongs to the Forest Department. She contended that neither the plaintiff nor his parents were ever in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction.
A further submission is made that the name of the Forest Department is entered in the Mutation Register and it is the forest land.
Lastly, she submits that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are erroneous and lack judicial reasoning.
Therefore, she prayed that the Regular Second Appeal may be allowed.
GOWDA VS VARADAPPA NAIDU reported in AIR 2004 SC 4609 that when the plaintiff was found to be in settled
NC: 2023:KHC:38559 RSA No. 1888 of 2008
possession, he would be entitled to the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. It is settled law that a party in possession can claim injunction against everyone, including the rightful owner since the rightful owner also must follow due process of law to evict him.
Noted the submission made on behalf of the Government. Except for saying that the plaintiff is a trespasser, the Government has done nothing. Furthermore, the issue is about the grant of an order of a permanent injunction. The issue neither relates to the regularization of possession nor a grant of the land. As already noted above, when the plaintiff was found to be in settled possession, he would be entitled to the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.
NC: 2023:KHC:38559 RSA No. 1888 of 2008
Furthermore, the findings by the Appellate Court are neither vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence nor there is a mistake or mistaken approach to the matter. I do not find any error in the finding of facts. For the reasons stated above, I find no infirmity in the Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court.
The substantial questions of law framed by this Court are answered holding that the issue does not relates to regularization of possession and the grant of the land. The Regular Second Appeal is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be dismissed.
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Court was right in granting an injunction against forest officers in the absence of proof that the lands were revenue lands.
Whether the Appellate Judge erred by not deciding if forest land could be granted to the respondent other than sanctioned land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rame Gowda vs Varadappa NaiduExplained¶43
RAME GOWDA VS VARADAPPA NAIDU reported in AIR 2004 SC 4609 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka
The Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Division
Sri Manjaiah
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
