The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2349 OF 2006 (DEC) BETWEEN: SMT ASWATHANARAYANAMMA, W/O KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DOMMATHAMARI VILLAGE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561202. (BY SRI A V GANGHADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: J ANJINAPPA, S/O J PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O DOMMATHAMARI VILLAGE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561202. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.7.2006 PASSED IN RA.NO.67/2004 (OLD 78/1998) ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT NO.V, TUMKUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.6.1998 PASSED IN OS.NO. 32/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), AND JMFC PAVAGADA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is arising from the divergent finding in a suit for declaration and injunction. 2. Plaintiff claimed that the suit property was allotted to him by the Mandal Panchayath on 16.01.1989 and apprehending that the defendant is likely to open a door adjacent to his building in the suit property and apprehending invasion of privacy on the premise that the door is sought to be opened near the place where the plaintiff is having a bathroom, plaintiff filed the suit. 3. The declaration sought to hold that the defendant has no right to open a new door at any point in AB wall as shown in the plaint hand sketch and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the new door at his own in AB wall. Injunction is also sought to restrain the defendant and his agents from opening new door in the AB wall. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR 4. The defendant contested the suit and disputed the alleged grant in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court decreed the suit primarily relying on the report of the Court Commissioner. Defendant filed the appeal before First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments and decrees, the plaintiff is before this Court in Second appeal. 7. This appeal was admitted on 23.07.2008 to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the ground the plaintiff has not acquired ownership by virtue of Ex. P1 and he has not right to question the act of the defendant in opening the door?" - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff taking through the pleadings and evidence led before the Court would contend that the report of the Court Commissioner establish the existence of bathroom on the eastern side of defendant's house. 9. He would further submit that AB wall where the plaintiff is seeking the restraint order is the boundary of the property between the plaintiff and the defendant as such, the defendant cannot open the door in the AB wall. 10. It is his further submission that the existence of the bathroom on the Eastern side of the defendant's property is very much established in the report of the Court Commissioner and in case, the suit is dismissed and the defendant is allowed to open the door on the AB wall, the plaintiff's right to privacy will be affected and plaintiff cannot use the bathroom in his own property. 11. It is urged that First Appellate Court is not justified in holding that the plaintiff has not established his - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR ownership over the suit property despite the plaintiff producing Ex.P.1 – the grant certificate issued by the Mandal Panchayath. 12. It is also urged that unless the defendant has the property adjacent to the wall, the defendant cannot open the door on the wall so as to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff and these aspects are not considered by First Appellate Court. 13. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent would contend that the title of the plaintiff over the suit property is not established. Ex.P.1 is not the grant certificate and that does not disclose the ownership of the plaintiff over the property. In addition, it is submitted that the report of the Court Commissioner would indicate that the AB wall is built on the property belonging to the defendant and defendant has every right to put a door on his wall which is built on his own property. Plaintiff cannot object to the defendant opening the door in the AB wall. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR 14. It is also urged that (without admitting the plaintiff's title) if plaintiff intends to use the space adjacent to the AB wall as a bathroom to ensure privacy, he is required to enclose his bathroom and if it is done so, the privacy of the plaintiff would not be invaded by the act of the defendant in opening the door or having the door in the AB Wall. 15. It is urged that the order granting injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from having a door in the AB wall is nothing but granting an injunction against the true owner from enjoying his property in the manner provided under law. Thus, he would contend that First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissing the suit. 16. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR 17. The suit is one for permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the door at his own cost in the AB wall. The plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the property which according to him is adjacent to the property of the defendant. 18. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's claim relating to the ownership and has disputed the grant made in favour of the defendant. Defendant in turn made a claim that the property which is in his possession is the property granted to him by the Panchayat. 19. The dispute arose between the parties, as the defendant tried to open the door in the wall which is described as AB in the sketch appended to the plaint. Before the Trial Court, Court Commissioner was appointed. He inspected the spot and submitted a report. In the sketch submitted by the Court Commissioner, the place where the door is located is mentioned. 20. The grievance of the appellant is that the door is sought to be opened in AB wall belonging to the defendant - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR and that door opens towards the bathroom of the plaintiff which according to the plaintiff is constructed in the property granted to the plaintiff. 21. The Trial Court referring to the Court Commissioner's report has concluded that there is no space outside AB wall which the defendant can make use of and there is no right to the defendant to open the door on the AB wall as he has no space beyond AB wall. Primarily on this basis, the Trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff has established his case and granted decree for permanent injunction. 22. The First Appellate Court has concluded that the plaintiff has not established his title over the property. Though the plaintiff has produced the grant certificate alleged to have been issued by Panchayat, the First Appellate Court has held that the grant certificate does not establish the title. 23. It is relevant to notice that the claim based on the grant certificate is disputed by the defendant. The First - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff is not the grantee of the land based on the certificate issued by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Said certificates are marked at Exhibits-D1 and D2. Exhibit D1 is confirmation letter issued by Venkatapura Gram Panchayat and Ex.D2 is the endorsement issued by Dammaathamari Gram Panchayat. 24. Admittedly, the property is within the jurisdiction of the Venkatapura Gram Panchayat. The certificate which is produced by the Secretary to the effect that there is no grant order in favour of the plaintiff and there is no resolution granting the property to the plaintiff is not disputed by the plaintiff in the cross-examination of defendant No.1. 25. Though learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would contend that the Secretary is not examined and the certificate cannot be looked into, this Court is unable to accept the said contention as the certificate is issued by the Competent Authority and the said certificate being a public document need not be proved unless it is seriously disputed - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not disputed the authenticity of the said certificate. 26. In addition to that, it was open for the plaintiff to establish that he is the owner of the property by producing appropriate resolution for having granted the land. Such resolution is not produced despite the defendant disputing the plaintiff's title over the property. 27. Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the First Appellate Court has concluded the ownership over the property is not established as such the plaintiff cannot seek relief of injunction. 28. This Court having considered the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court is of the view that there are no reasons available in law to upset the finding of the First Appellate Court relating to the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. 29. As already noticed, the Trial Court has granted injunction on the premise that there is no property belonging - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR to the defendant on the eastern side of AB wall. Whether the property belonging to the defendant is available on the eastern side of AB wall and whether the property is available on the eastern side of AB wall over which the defendant can claim right is not the question to be decided. The question to be decided is whether the defendant can put-up a door on the AB wall which admittedly is built on the property belonging to the defendant. It is not the case of the plaintiff that AB wall is the encroached portion. Whether the door in case opened is of a utility for the defendant or not is not for the plaintiff to question. 30. It appears that the plaintiff has filed a suit that in case the door is opened on AB wall which admittedly belongs to the defendant, the plaintiff's privacy will be affected as he has a bathroom adjacent to AB wall. If at all there is any apprehension about the privacy of the plaintiff being invaded, it is for the plaintiff to ensure that the bathroom is properly closed, subject ofcourse if he is the owner of the property. In the absence of acceptable document to hold the plaintiff's title over the property, the First Appellate Court is - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:24233 RSA No. 2349 of 2006 HC-KAR justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 31. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the grounds raised by the appellant and substantial question of law framed is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79