An occupant who fails to prove possession cannot obtain an injunction over government land reserved as a graveyard.

The appellants, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 106/2006, sought a permanent injunction concerning 4 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 121, Guddekoppa Village, claiming possession through their family’s cultivation.

The respondents asserted that the Government land had been reserved in part for a Hindu burial ground.

A related suit, O.S. No. 87/2009, seeking a declaration concerning the burial-ground reservation, was tried with the appellants’ suit; both suits were dismissed. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal and confirmed the dismissal of O.S. No. 106/2006.

During the second appeal, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) dismissed the appellants’ challenge to the reservation of 3 acres for a burial ground, and that decision was not further challenged.

1. Whether the concurrent findings dismissing the appellants’ injunction suit raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC, particularly in light of the alleged non-consideration of evidence of possession.

2. Whether the appellants established a basis for interference with the concurrent findings on possession and entitlement to an injunction, given the final KAT decision upholding the reservation of the land for a burial ground.

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law arises; concurrent factual findings do not warrant interference merely because a party disputes the appreciation of evidence.

A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction based on possession must establish actual possession of the property at the relevant time.

The Trial Court also referred to Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, concerning refusal of an injunction where an equally efficacious remedy is available.

The courts below considered authorities concerning protection of settled possession and the limits on injunctions concerning public land; the High Court’s decision, however, rested on the absence of a substantial question of law and the finality of the KAT order.

The concurrent courts found that the appellants had not proved possession when the suit was filed: the relevant revenue records described the land as Government land and, subsequently, as reserved for a Hindu graveyard, while the appellants’ names did not appear in the records for the suit period.

The High Court also noted that the appellants’ claim for regularisation had been rejected and that the KAT had dismissed their challenge to the reservation of 3 acres for a burial ground.

Because that KAT decision had attained finality, and the appellants’ grounds did not establish legal error in the concurrent findings, the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring consideration in second appeal.

It dismissed RSA No. 1466 of 2017 at the admission stage, leaving undisturbed the concurrent dismissal of the appellants’ suit for permanent injunction.