1. SHRI v. NARAYANAPPA S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT VIJAYAPURA DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 BANGALORE DISTRICT 2
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 967 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI V. NARAYANAPPA S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT VIJAYAPURA DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 BANGALORE DISTRICT 2. SHRI C RAJAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SHRI MUNINARAYANA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. SHRI MUNIVENKATARAYAPPA S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT SHETTAHALLI, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. (BY SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE V/O DATED 04.03.2025 APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN R/O APPELLANT NO.1) …APPELLANTS AND: 1. SHRI VENKATAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA SINCE DEAD
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
BY HIS LRS, SHRI V VENKATARAMAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 2. SHRI V VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 3. SHRI V LAXMINARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 4. SHRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O LATE DAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SHETTAHALLI, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN: 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY FOR C/R1(A)., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 7.4.2014 IN R.A.NO.207/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 25.9.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.28.2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC., DEVANAHALLI.TRAIL COURT DECREED THE SUIT. PASSED THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 passed in R.A.No. 207/2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, and the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.28/2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) and JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred, to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.1,2,4 and 5, respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, and respondent No.2 was defendant No.3. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration, and consequential relief of a permanent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR injunction regarding the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, there is no path way which runs through schedule ‘A’ property belonging to the plaintiffs, which is being in usage from time immemorial. It is contended that a path way is running in Sy.No.17 turn towards Sy.No.20, and said road is passing through Sy. Nos.19, 5 and 2 of Shettihalli. It is contended that a portion of land in survey No.17 belonged to defendant No.1, where the said path way measuring 10 feet width runs. It is further contended that due to the various developments in the village only a small portion of the said path way runs in north-eastern side of 'B' schedule property. Defendant No.1 is making efforts to lay false claims to the effect that there is a straight road running north to south in Sy.No.17 and in Sy.No.21/2 lands in 1983 and made attempts to widen the said path way. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.141/1983 which was decreed on 05.04.1995 and the decree passed in O.S.No.141/1983 was challenged in R.A.No.73/1995 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.141/1983 vide judgment dated 25.09.1996. 4. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in RSA No.1039/1996 challenging the judgment and decree passed in RA.No.73/1995. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.11.1996 with the observation that if there is any interference with the suit property, it is open for the plaintiff herein to approach the Court of law, in accordance with law. It is further contended that based on order dated 07.11.1996 defendant No.1 being the owner of northern portion of land in Sy.No.17, is trying to interfere with the property belonging to the plaintiffs in Sy.No.17 and Sy.No.21/2. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration and a permanent injunction. 5. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule properties are belonged - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR to the plaintiff except the existing path way which has been in existence from time immemorial. It is contended that the disputed path way is 10ft wider and it runs in northern eastern portion of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule land and the said path way is used as a cart road since time immemorial to reach their land and a burial ground is situated on the north-south side of the said land. It is contended that the present suit is not maintainable under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1(a) was examined as PW1 and produced 32 documents, marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, examined 7 witnesses as DW2 to DW8, and marked 3 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW1, and marked 28 documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C28. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR 8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, on assessing the verbal, and documentary evidence held that the plaintiff has proved that the disputed path way is 3 to 3 ½ ft width and 50 ft length, and located on the north-eastern portion of the ‘B’ schedule property as against the claim and also held that the defendants are making an attempt to widen the width of the said path way and also extending its length to the suit to suit their convenience and to cause harassment and loss to the plaintiff and also recorded that the defendant has failed to prove that the disputed path way is 10ft wider and it runs in the 'A' and 'B' schedule land and the said path way used is cart road since time immemorial to reach their land and burial ground situated on the north- south side of the suit land as contended by them and held that the defendants have failed to prove that the suit is hit by principles of res-judicata and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR 9. It is ordered and declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and also holding that there is no path way or public road in the portion of A schedule property, and there exists only pathway in the northern eastern portion of the B schedule property with measurement as furnished in Karnataka Revenue Manual - Chapter 5, 5.05 (a- foot path) in respect of width and length of 50 ft. as per the marked sketch and the defendants are permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties in any manner and also restrained from forming any road in suit schedule A property and remaining portion of B schedule property. 10. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.28/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.207/2008. The first appellate Court, after re- assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 07.04.2014. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the disputed path way is 10ft width and it runs in northern eastern portion of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule lands and the said path way is used as cart road since time immemorial to reach their lands and a burial ground is situated on the north-south side of the said land. He submits that both Courts below have not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants. 14. Both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the village map marked at - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR Ex.P32/Ex.P11, clearly reveals the dotted foot path and it runs through short portion of the northern side of the ‘B’ schedule property, which is marked as "DEFG" by the plaintiff in the rough sketch mentioning 3 to 3 ½ feet and it is held the defendants are having right to use the said portion as per measurement mentioned in the rough sketch. The Court Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court and he has submitted the report and he was examined as CW1 and further the Courts below considered Ex.C-5 and Ex.C6 i.e., village map which discloses that it is a dotted lines and as per the measurement shown in Karnataka land Tribunal Manual, the width of road is 3-3 ½ ft. The defendants have not produced any records to show that the width of the disputed way is 10ft. In the absence of any documents, both Courts below were justified in recording a finding that the disputed way is only 3 - 3 ½ ft and also considered the provisions of Karnataka Revenue Manual - Chapter 5, 5.05 (a- foot path) in respect of width and length of the pathway, which is mentioned as per the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24354 RSA No. 967 of 2014 HC-KAR sketch. Both Courts below, have concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the defendants. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
Decision
ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the costs. iv) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA No.1/2014, does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, IA No.1/2014 is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22