Sri Rajappa Vs Sri M Murugendraiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Rajappa Vs Sri M Murugendraiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2019 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAJAPPA, S/O. JAJUR RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, HOTEL KEEPER, R/O SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST-577 552.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA HOLLA V. S., ADVOCATE (VC))

AND:

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. M. MURUGENDRAIAH, S/O. LATE JAYADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST AND MANAGER OF THE JAYADEVAIAHNAVARA DHARMA CHATRA, RESIDENT OF SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST-577 552.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 23.10.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 13/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.129/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC., CHANNAGIRI.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment passed in R.A.No.13/2017 dated 23.10.2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'). Wherein, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.129/2013 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') dated 03.07.2017.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the trial Court rankings in the suit.

Brief facts of the case is that, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff the suit schedule property originally belong to his great grand

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

father Maurya and the said great grandfather had executed a Will in favour of father of the plaintiff to maintain the suit schedule property and after the death of his father the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property and continued in possession of the same. The defendant having no manner of right, title or interest, put up a petty shop in the suit schedule property and thereby tried to interfere with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the scheduled property. Though the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police for the said encroachment, said jurisdiction police have failed to take any such action against the defendant. Left with no other option the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction against the defendant before the Trial Court.

After the suit summons, the defendant appeared though his learned counsel and filed his written statement contending that he is running the hotel in the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property belongs to the Grama Panchayat, Santhebennur and he had got a license from the said Panchayat and running the hotel ever since from 1992. That on the western side of the said hotel, old wall was in existence without anybody's interference. Much less the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

defendant is running the hotel in the property belonging to the Grama Panchayat, Santhebennur. As such, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the said Grama Panchayat, Santhebennur property. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

Having considered the pleadings of the rival parties the trial Court framed the following issues;

'' 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that interference by the defendants as alleged in the plaint?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought for?

4. What order or decree?''

In order to prove the case before the trial Court, the

plaintiff examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. Further, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and also examined one more witness on his behalf as DW2 and marked 24 documents as DW1 to DW24. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 as per the final order and decreed the suit with cost.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed the regular appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.13/2017. The First Appellate Court on reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant. In challenge to the same, appellant/defendant is before this Court.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit schedule property belongs to the Grama Panchayat, Santhebennur and by obtaining a license from the said Grama Panchayath, the defendant running a hotel in the suit schedule property ever since from the year 1992. According to learned counsel, on the western side of the said hotel old wall was in existence without anybody's interference. He specifically contented that he is running the said hotel in the property of the Grama Panchayat, Santhebennur and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in the said panchayat property. At no point of time, the defendant interfered the suit schedule property. As such there is no cause

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

of action arose for filing of the suit and the trial Court grossly erred in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff by granting an order of injunction against the defendant. Further, the First Appellate Court without properly re-appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Hence, he prays to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court by allowing the present regular second appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to prove the same he produced the Ex.P1-register of 2013 and 2014, Ex.P2-endorsement and other relevant documents to prove his title and also possession over the suit schedule property. Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 are the Will letters dated 14.06.1967 and 16.01.1969 and apart from that he also placed Electricity supply receipt as per Ex.P6. He also contented that before filing the present suit, he also obtained an order of injunction against the panchayat in O.S.No.173/1988 for the interference in the panchayat to the larger extent of the suit schedule property. He contended that the defendant having no right, title or interest over the suit

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

schedule property, who is a stranger to the suit schedule property, started to encroach the property by shifting his petty shop to the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. As such, plaintiff left with no other option, filed the suit before the trial Court. The Trial Court after meticulously examining all the documents and evidence placed by the plaintiff, has decreed the suit which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, he prays to dismiss this appeal.

I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the evidence and other documents made available before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

As could be gathered from the records, the plaintiff to prove the title and possession of the suit schedule property has placed the documents like Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 i.e., Will letters dated 14.06.1967 and 16.01.1969 and Ex.P6 also Electricity supply receipt. It is admitted case of the defendant that he is running his hotel in the panchayat property by obtaining

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

necessary license from the said panchayat. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant in O.S.No.173/1988 against the panchayat in respect of the larger extent of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, against the said judgment regular appeal in R.A.No.100/2001 was preferred by the Panchayat, which was also came to be dismissed as per Ex.D17.

On careful perusal of the cross-examination of the defendant, it could be seen that defendant made an attempt to put his petty shop in a place near the well which was in an open area and which was utilized by the Authority for road widening. As such, he made an attempt to shift his business to the plaintiff’s property, which was opposed by the plaintiff.

Further, defendant himself admitted the above facts in the cross examination. In such circumstances, it is clear that the defendant has interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and plaintiff being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly passed the decree by granting perpetual injunction against the defendant

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43284 RSA No. 237 of 2019

HC-KAR

and not to interfere, use and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also on reassessment rightly upheld the said judgment of the trial Court.

I find no good grounds to interfere in the impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. There is no such substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, same is

dismissed .

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19