The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1975 OF 2021 (INJ) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N. JYOTHI W/O SRI. M.S. RAJASHEKAR PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 117, 6TH CROSS VAPASANDRA 1ST WARD CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101. (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. N. PREMAKUMARI W/O LATE C.N. GURURAJ PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Legal Reasoning
2. SHRI. NITHIN GANGA S/O LATE C.N. GURURAJ PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SHRI. NISHANTHA GANGA A/O LATE C.N. GURURAJ PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4. SHRI. C.N. GANGADHARA S/O LATE C.G. NARAYANAPPA PRESENTLY Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R1 TO R4 ARE RESIDING AT 1ST WARD VAPASANDRA, BEHING GOPIKA HOTEL B.B. ROAD CHICKBALLAPUR CITY-562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.119/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JMFC., CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.714/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPUR. JUDGE AND 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 09.12.2020 passed in R.A.No.119/2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur, and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.714/2007 dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, respondents Nos.1 to 3 were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1, and respondent No.2 was plaintiff No.2. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction. It is contended that the lands bearing Sy.Nos.124, 160, 161, 162/1, 162/2, and 162/3 of Ammani Manchanabale Kere village belong to the plaintiffs’ ancestors. The plaintiffs and their brothers have partitioned family properties under a partition deed i.e., Vibhaga Dastavegina Patra dated 25.06.1998. The suit schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Further, a 10 feet road demarcated in ‘A’ schedule property. Plaintiff No.1 executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant regarding the lands in Sy.Nos.124, 160, 161, 161/1, 162/2, and 162/3. In the said sale deed, clearly shows that the road has been retained for the purpose of ingress and egress. It is contended that, in the boundaries column of Sy.No. 162/1 towards the northern side, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 there is a road leading to Sy.Nos.122/1, 123/1 and 124 and turn to the west leading to Appayanakunte for the use of the only family members of C.G.Narayanappa and others who is none other than the plaintiffs’ father. A road is demarcated in the sketch produced by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs family members are using the road for the purpose of moving vehicles and shifting the agricultural goods. The defendant is trying to close the said road. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit schedule properties, that there was a partition between the plaintiffs on 25.06.1988, and that there exists a road as alleged by the plaintiffs. It is contended that the plaintiffs have sold the suit schedule property to the defendant under the registered sale deed dated 12.12.2005. It is contended that there is no road, as alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint, but there is a small pathway. It is contended that the plaintiffs are trying to enlarge the use and utility of the said small pathway. It is contended that the plaintiffs are attempting to encroach - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 upon the various portions of the defendant’s land. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The plaintiffs to prove their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1, after the amendment of plaint, plaintiff No.2 was further examined as PW.2 and marked 52 documents as Exs.P1 to 52. On the other hand, the defendant was examined as DW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.D1 to 13. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW.1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.C1 to C7. The trial Court, on the assessing the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs vide judgment dated 07.06.2007 and restrained the defendant from closing the existence of the road or obstructing and disturbing the enjoyment of 10 feet of road continued towards Sy.Nos.162/2, 162/1, 161, 160 and 124, and it will end in Sy.No.123/1, as shown in the suit schedule by the plaintiffs. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.714/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.119/2019. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 7. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.714/2007 vide judgment dated 09.12.2020. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. 9. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that there is no road as alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint. He submits that there is a small pathway and the plaintiffs are trying to extend the pathway and encroach upon the land of the defendant. He submits that neither of the Courts below have has properly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have acquired the lands under a registered partition deed dated 25.06.1998, and in the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 said partition, there is a recital regarding the suit road. Further, plaintiff No.1 has sold the property in favour of the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2005. In the said sale deed, towards the northern side, it is shown as a road leading to Sy.Nos. 122/1, 123/1 and 124. The defendant has taken a contention that there is no road, but a small pathway is existence. However, the plaintiff has produced a certified copy of the registered sale deed marked as Ex.P24. Plaintiff No.1 has produced the registered sale deed executed in favour of the defendant, which discloses that a road exists and the defendant is trying to obstruct the road. The plaintiffs, by producing Ex.P23, i.e., registered partition deed and Ex.P24 certified copy of the registered sale deed, proved that there exists a road, and the defendant is trying to obstruct/close the road. The trial Court, relying on Exs.P23 and 24, has rightly passed the impugned judgment. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the appeal. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11818 RSA No. 1975 of 2021 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed; ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly disposed of. SKS Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE