Dismissed¶¶57

Sri. Ramu v. Smt. Mamatha

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2025RSA/757/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:26131 — RSA No. 757 of 2025 (INJ), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, H.P. Sandesh J, decided 15-07-2025. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against confirmation of permanent injunction decree in O.S.No.583/2014 (Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kolar) by R.A.No.127/2023 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kolar). Keywords: permanent injunction; possession admitted by D.W.1 to D.W.3; Khatha No.220; Sy.No.34; 1 acre 16 guntas; Saguvali Chit Ex.D1; LND.RUO.46/2002-03; O.S.No.159/2005 declaration decree; substantial question of law; statutory first appeal; dismissal at admission stage; Kolar; Sugatur Hobli; counsel for respondents absent.

What did the court decide?

There is no ground to admit the regular second appeal or to frame a substantial question of law. ¶¶50

Sri. Ramu Vs Smt. Mamatha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular second appeal should be admitted and substantial questions of law framed, or rejected at the admission stage in view of the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. +1 more

¶¶50

Court's answer

There is no ground to admit the regular second appeal or to frame a substantial question of law.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

Both the question of fact and the question of law were considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the first appeal being a statutory appeal.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

On perusal of the record, the admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 in cross-examination establish that the family of Krishnappa still resides in the property (Khatha No.220 measuring 30 x 40 feet) and the plaintiffs are residing therein till date.ratio¶¶50
The appellant's contention regarding Ex.D1 Saguvali Chit was already taken note of by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.33 of its judgment, and therefore did not furnish ground for admitting the second appeal.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (INJ) under Section 100 CPC — dismissed at admission stage. Plaintiffs obtained a decree of permanent injunction in O.S.No.583/2014 (Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar) founded on the categorical admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 that the plaintiffs are in possession and residence in the suit property (Khatha No.220, 30 x 40 feet); the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.127/2023 confirmed the decree, holding that although the defendant held a grant of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.34 with a prior decree in O.S.No.159/2005 for declaration and injunction, that decree does not entitle him to obstruct the plaintiffs' peaceful possession. Before the High Court, the appellant contended that both courts erred in ignoring the Tahsildar's grant (LND.RUO.46/2002-03), Ex.D1 Saguvali Chit and Exs.D3 and D4. Held: the Ex.D1 Saguvali Chit contention was already taken note of by the First Appellate Court (paragraph No.33); both questions of fact and law having been considered by the Trial Court and the statutory First Appellate Court, no substantial question of law arises and the second appeal is dismissed. (H.P. Sandesh, J.; decided 15 July 2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.757 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. RAMU S/O LATE SUGATURAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT T. PURAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN-563102.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. G.V.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. MAMATHA W/O VENKATARAMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶16

SRI. VENKATARAMAPPA S/O PAPISHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT T. PURAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-563102.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VISWESWARAIAH S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 - ABSENT)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.127/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.583/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

¶28

learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents is absent.

¶29

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property is that they are in lawful possession over the suit schedule property and also contend that defendant started interfering over the suit schedule property.

¶30

The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit schedule property and the defendant's property originally belongs to the Government. The

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

defendant filed application under Form No.53 before the Tahsildar, Kolar and the said application is still pending for adjudication. The defendant’s father was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years by growing seasonal crops. The plaintiffs have encroached 30 guntas of the defendant's property on the southern side and also created illegal documents and obstructed peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶35

The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly the evidence of D.W.1, wherein he categorically admits that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and they have taken electricity connection and family members of Krishnappa are residing even today and taken note of admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3 and also the material available on record and comes to the conclusion that possession of the plaintiffs has been established and also comes to the conclusion that interference is proved, since they are claiming that the property originally belongs to the Government and now contend that very same property is

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

allotted in their favour. When such admission is available before the Court, the Trial Court granted the relief of permanent injunction.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the said judgment granting the relief of permanent injunction, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.127/2023 and the First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that plaintiffs are in possession of the property and with regard to the interference and it requires interference of this Court.

¶41

The First Appellate Court having considered the material on record, particularly the admissions on the part of the witnesses, comes to the conclusion that possession is admitted and in paragraph No.33 comes to the conclusion that defendant's contention is that in Sy.No.34, 1 acre, 16 guntas of land is granted in his favour and the grant of land in favour of the defendant to an extent of 1 acre, 16 guntas is not disputed by the plaintiffs and defendant has also obtained decree in O.S. No.159/2005 in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. However, the decreetal of O.S.No.159/2005 will not

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

entitle the defendant to obstruct the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also having noticed that already there was a decree in respect of the property which was granted in favour of the appellant/defendant, which has also been considered by the First Appellate Court, taken note of admission on the part of D.Ws.1 to 3 in paragraph No.32 and when the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court.

¶45

The main contention of counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction and contend that suit schedule property is granted by the Tahsildar, Kolar vide LND.RUO.46/2002-03 and in terms of Ex.D1, Saguvali Chit was also issued and Exs.D3 and D4 are the judgments and the same have not been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while considering the material on record.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶47

also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the admissions on the part of D.Ws.1 to 3, in the crossexamination categorically admitted that family of Krishnappa are still residing in the property i.e., in Khatha No.220 measuring 30 x 40 feet and D.W.1 categorically says that he had seen the house and in the said house itself, the plaintiffs are residing till date and when such admission was given and the same was also extracted in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 and the First Appellate Court also with regard to the very contention urged before this Court in respect of Ex.D1 Saguvali Chit is concerned, the same is also taken note of in paragraph Nos.33 that already even injunction was obtained by the appellant in O.S.No.159/2005 i.e. in respect of 1 acre, 16 guntas which was granted in favour of the defendant. When such being the case, question of admitting and framing substantial question of law in the present second appeal does not arise and both the question of fact and question of law was considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court since the said appeal being the Statutory appeal. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantial question of law.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:26131 RSA No. 757 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54