The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.141 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.V.MUNINARAYANA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1(a) SMT. H.V.SHANKUNTHALAMMA, W/O LATE H.V.MUNINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT HUNGENAHLLI VILLAGE, HUNGENAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. 1(b) SMT. H.M.MALINI, D/O LATE H.V. MUNINARAYANA, W/O SUBRAMANYAM H.V., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, ADARSHA NAGAR, ARALERI ROAD, 3RD CROSS, WARD NO.15, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. 1(c) SMT. H.M.SAVITHA, D/O LATE H.V. MUNINARAYANA, W/O PRASANNA KUMAR K., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.72, 2ND CROSS, HOODI, NEAR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560248. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR 1(d) SMT. N. VANITHA, D/O LATE H.V. MUNINARAYANA, W/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.124, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BEHIND MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, HOSAPALYA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560068. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the report of the Commissioner as well as the admission on the part of P.W.1, the Trial Court in paragraph No.9, taken note of the evidence in detail and granted the relief of permanent injunction. But while granting the relief, made it clear that on the western side of the suit schedule property, Sy.No.28/167 is in existence, though the name of R.P.Ramesh is shown in the boundary, while granting the relief of permanent injunction shown Sy.No.28/167 as per the Commissioner report and granted the relief. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that before the First Appellate Court, an application was filed invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and the same was rejected. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, the First Appellate Court also formulated the points whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of the land as shown in the boundaries and whether the application filed deserves to be allowed and whether it requires interference of the Court? The Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly the Commissioner report, in paragraph No.39, taken note of that the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs with regard to suit Sy.No.28/2 also shows only 2 acres of land. Thus, in the absence of proper pleadings and evidence in support of such plea, the contention of the plaintiffs that boundaries prevail over the extent and they are in possession of 4 acres of land cannot be accepted. As per the report of the Court Commissioner submitted on 13.11.2015, the plaintiffs are in possession of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.28/P2 and the land situated on the western side is Sy.No.28/167 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas, which is in possession of defendant No.2. It is clarified that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR defendants are not in possession of any excess land. The plaintiffs have not filed any objections to the said report of the Court Commissioner taking up any contentions to the contrary. The First Appellate Court having considered all these materials, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants in this second appeal would vehemently contend that the defendants played fraud and got compromised the suit showing the property belongs to them and both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the material available on record. It is also contended that in the absence of there being findings that, the cloud casted on the title of the appellants over the suit schedule property, whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that they have to seek the relief of declaration and the very approach of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is erroneous and fails to take note of the material on record. In the absence of the defendants placing any material that western boundary shown in the suit schedule is not correct, whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR on the said ground. The learned counsel would contend that this Court has to frame the substantial question of law. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the material available on record, the Trial Court having considered the Commissioner report, though earlier Commissioner report was filed, the same was questioned and disputed and subsequently re-directed the Commissioner to file a fresh report and fresh report is considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.8 and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of 2 acres of land for which they have claimed the relief of permanent injunction and though they claim more than 2 acres, nothing is placed on record to substantiate that they are having more property. The Trial Court noticing that on the western side of the suit schedule property, the property of Sy.No.28/167 is available in terms of the Commissioner report, granted the relief except modifying the western boundary in respect of other three boundaries the same tallies with each other. An observation is also made that the plaintiffs are making an attempt to claim more extent than what they are having title as well as possession and the possession is also confirmed - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR that they are in possession of 2 acres of land and the same is observed in paragraph No.9 extracting the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and an observation is made that it means that the plaintiffs are claiming more than 2 acres though they have title and possession only to an extent of 2 acres and the plaintiffs have no right concern over Sy.No.28/167. Further, he has also admitted that the defendants got the said Sy.No.28/167 measuring 2 acres as per compromise decree passed in O.S.No.49/2005 and even the Commissioner report is also that defendant No.2 is having only 2 acres of land i.e., actually 1 acre 39 guntas was shown in the Commissioner report and the same is taken note of. 10. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record, formulated the point with regard to 4 acres is concerned and answered the same in the negative, since the plaintiffs have got 2 acres of land and also the possession is established to the extent of 2 acres and a detail discussion was made in paragraph No.39 of the judgment of the Appellate Court having considered the Commissioner report. The fact that the Commissioner was appointed and re-directed to submit the Commissioner report - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR also taken note of and none of the parties have filed any objections to the second Commissioner report. Taking note of that only an extent of 2 acres is already granted by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court also confirmed the same. When such being the case, the very contention that this Court has to frame the substantial question of law with regard to both the Courts are not justified in appreciating the material on record and in coming to the conclusion that on the western side, the property bearing No.28/167 remains is erroneous and ought to have shown as the land of R.P.Ramesh cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
SRI. H.V. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. (BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA L.M., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: 1. SRI. AGADUR ANNAYAPPA, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT AGADUR VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560036. 2. SRI. R.P.MANJUNATHA, S/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.10.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.88/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR DATED 11.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.162/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.28/P2 and the schedule shown in the plaint is as follows: SCHEDULE The property situated at Hongenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, bearing Sy.No.28/P/2, an extent of 2 acres, bounded on: East by : Land of Narayanaswamy West by : Land of R.P.Ramesh earlier belongs to the defendants land which he has purchased from one Chowdappa and his sons. North by : Road leading to Kanivenhalli South by : Varadenahalli Gadi. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR 3. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement and specifically contended in paragraph No.10 that the plaintiffs have approached the Court for discretionary relief of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property claiming Sy.No.28/2 measuring to an extent of 2 acres and they have given wrong boundaries towards the western side purposely, which includes the property of defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the property situated towards the western side of plaint schedule, which includes 15 tamarind trees and eucalyptus trees which is in occupation of defendant No.2 for more than 12 years. Since the RTC extract is standing in the name of defendant No.1, he was claiming the said property. Though defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the property, defendant No.1 was interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of this defendant's property and hence defendant No.2 had no alternative except to file a suit before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Malur in O.S.No.49/2005. After the service of notice, it ended with compromise on the advice of the elders and well wishers. On the basis of the compromise decree, defendant No.2 filed an application before the Tahasildar, Malur Taluk, for change of Khatha and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR RTC in his name and it is still pending. The defendant No.2 submits that the property claimed by him is Sy.No.28/167 measuring to an extent of 2 acres situated at Hungenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, bounded on the East by Subramanyam, West by R.P.Ramesh, North by road and South by Varadenahalli Gadi and within the said boundaries, there are tamarind trees. 4. Having considered the written statement filed by defendant No.2 and also the averments made in the plaint when the suit is filed only for the relief of bare injunction, the issues are framed whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged and the averments made in the plaint as well as written statement, allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to 23. On the other hand, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR defendants examined three witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 6. The Commissioner was appointed before the Trial Court and the Commissioner was also examined as C.W.1 and the Commissioner’s report is also marked as Ex.C1. The Trial Court having considered the exhibits and also the oral evidence, in detail discussed in paragraph No.8 regarding the evidence of the parties as well as Commissioner report and when objection was raised by defendant No.2, redirected the Commissioner to file further report and then he has filed the further report on 13.11.2015, but against the further report of the Commissioner, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have filed any objections to report of the Commissioner and both are admitted report of Commissioner. As per further report of the Commissioner, he has specifically shown the extent of Sy.No.28/P2 and extent of Sy.No.28/167 with boundaries along with sketch. As per second report/further report, the Commissioner has mentioned in his report that the plaintiffs are in possession of 2 acres and they are not in possession more than 2 acres and defendants property i.e., Sy.No.28/167 is situated on western side of the suit schedule property i.e., measuring 1 acre 39 guntas and on western side - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25729 RSA No. 141 of 2022 HC-KAR of Sy.No.28/167 property belongs to R.P.Ramesh property Sy.No.28 is existing. In view of the report of the Commissioner once it is clear that whatever the boundaries shown by the plaintiffs pertaining to the suit schedule property on western side i.e., R.P.Ramesh property is situated is wrong, but Sy.No.28/167 is situated the same property claimed by the defendants. 5.
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55