The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 2. SRI MAHALINGAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, SRI.M. BASAVANNA DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2(A) SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2(B) MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2(C) PARVATHAMMA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2(D) PRABHAVATHI @ CHIKKAMMANNI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2(E) GURUMALLAMMANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2(A) AND 2(B) ARE SONS AND 2(C) AND (E) ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE M. BASAVANNA ALL ARE RESIDING AT BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Facts
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR SOSALE HOBLI TALUK, T.NARASIPURA, DIST MYSORE P.C.571124
Legal Reasoning
11. It is settled law that the boundaries will prevail over the extent as both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit site measuring 25x8 yards. In a suit for injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession and interference. Admittedly, both the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff has constructed steps in front of his house and it is causing a nuisance. The pleading in the written statement is sufficient to hold that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI. ARAVIND C DESAI, ADVOCATE V/O DATED 04.12.2024 APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST APPELLANT No.2 AS ABATED) …APPELLANTS AND: B.N. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124 (BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 07.04.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., T. NARSIPURA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 20.09.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.239/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) T.NARASIPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 passed in R.A.No.16/2006 by the learned Senior Civil - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.239/1998 dated 20.09.2006 by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) T. Narasipura. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing over the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property bearing khata No.84/63 measuring 25x8 yards situated at Benakanahally Village and 2’ 26” in the middle, i.e., towards the Southern side running from the Eastern side to the Western side which belongs to the plaintiff and part and parcel of the suit schedule property. It is contended - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR that originally, it belonged to one Smt. Madamma. She sold the said property in favour of Veerappa under a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2022, who in turn sold the same to the father of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2025. After the demise of his father, the plaintiff constructed a residential-cum-silk rearing house and a cow shed in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff constructed a house having some vacant space as a passage. The plaintiff is using the passage to reach the backyard. The said passage divides the property of the plaintiff and defendant. The defendants started to demarcate the boundaries and encroach the passage. The defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendants did not give any heed to the requests made by plaintiff. Hence, the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR 4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the plaintiff’s father had purchased the land measuring to the extent of 25x7 yards. There is no bar for the plaintiff or his father to get the rectification deed regarding the extent of the said site. It is contended that the plaintiff used to go to the backyard on the channel bund and several Parthenium plants were grown. It is contended that the plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to use his site which he had permitted. It is contended that the steps constructed by the plaintiff in front of his house was causing obstruction to the movement of the defendant’s bullock cart. Hence, defendant No.2 requested the plaintiff for the removal of one of the steps. Instead of doing so, the plaintiff filed a false suit against the defendants. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR 6. The plaintiff, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1, examined two other witnesses as DWs-2 and 3 and marked 16 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.16. The trial Court on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment dated 20.09.2006. 7. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.239/1998 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.16/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T. Narasipura. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that plaintiff’s - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR father had purchased the site measuring 25x7 yards. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the 25x8 yards. The plaintiff also submits that neither the plaintiff nor his father, obtained a rectification deed regarding the measurement of the site. Hence, he submits that both the Courts below without considering the said aspect have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants. 10. There is no dispute that the plaintiff’s father had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2025. The plaintiff’s father while purchasing the suit schedule property the measurement of the said property was shown as 25x7 yards. The plaintiff has produced records to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit site measuring 25x8 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014 HC-KAR yards. From the perusal of the boundaries, it discloses that the plaintiff is in possession of the extent of 25x8 yards.
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK