Karnataka High Court
E B Sheshappa vs G R Chandrashekara on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48440
RSA No. 1300 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
E B SHESHAPPA
S/O BELLAIAH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O ELIMANE, NALUR POST
AGUMBE HOBLI
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.N HARISH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. G R CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O RAMAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O GUDDEKERI AT/POST
AGUMBE HOBLI
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48440
RSA No. 1300 of 2019
HC-KAR
2. M.H DEVARAJ
S/O HOLIYAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O MEDOLIGE
KENDALBYLU POST
AGUMBE HOBLI
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHARADA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. ASHWATH C.M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2019
PASSED IN RA NO.17/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI. ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.06.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.184/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 20.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48440
RSA No. 1300 of 2019
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by defendant No.1.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants, restraining the defendants and their agents, representatives, from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment in the suit schedule properties.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of garden land in Sy.No.43 measuring 6 guntas and 9 guntas of Honnethalu Village, Thirthahalli Taluk under different boundaries (for brevity, "suit schedule properties"). The said land was granted by the government vide order dated 12.06.2012 to the plaintiff and he has been in possession and cultivation of entire 15 guntas of said land since 20 years. Further, defendant No.1 had purchased garden land of the plaintiff in Sy.No.62 measuring 39 guntas of Honnethalu village. The lands in said Sy.Nos.62 and 43 are adjacent to each other. The plaintiff has been in cultivation of 15 guntas of land in -4- NC: 2025:KHC:48440 RSA No. 1300 of 2019 HC-KAR Sy.No.43 i.e., 9 guntas in one side and 6 guntas in another side of the said land and has been in continuous possession of the same. However, defendant No.1 agreed to sell 39 guntas of garden land in Sy.No.62, which was purchased from the plaintiff, to defendant No.2 and by virtue of the same, the defendants interfered with the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.
4. On service of summons, defendants appeared and filed separate written statements denying the averments of the plaint and also disputing the boundary of the suit schedule properties and contending that there is no cause of action to file the suit and as such, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48440 RSA No. 1300 of 2019 HC-KAR that the plaintiff has failed to prove the location, identity and boundaries of the suit schedule properties as claimed in the plaint and his possession over the same.
6. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, has observed that the Trial Court has erred while dismissing the suit by relying on the error in the boundaries mentioned in respect of suit schedule properties in Ex.D3 - Sale Deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. According to the First Appellate Court, Ex.D3 - Sale Deed clearly depicts that on the north - south of defendant No.1's property, lands in Sy.No.62 block-3 and Sy.No.43 are situated. Thus, it is clear that plaintiff's properties in Sy.No.43 is situated on the north - south side of defendant No.1's property. As such, the plaintiff has proved the title, possession and interference of the defendants in the suit schedule properties. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit accordingly. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:48440 RSA No. 1300 of 2019 HC-KAR
7. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this Court.
8. I have heard Sri P.N.Harish, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Sharada N., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ashwath C.M., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 is that the First Appellate Court has grossly erred in allowing the appeal by only relying on the boundaries mentioned in Ex.D3 that the plaintiff's properties are situated on the north - south side of defendant No.1's property. According to him, in Ex.D3 - Sale Deed, it is specifically stated that to the north - south side of defendant No.1's property, Sy.No.62, block-3 and block-1 are situated and thereafter, Sy.No.43 is situated. In such circumstance, defendant No.1 cannot interfere with the plaintiff's properties by crossing block-1 and 3 of Sy.No.62. He further contended that the property of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48440 RSA No. 1300 of 2019 HC-KAR plaintiff and defendant No.1 are bifurcated and property bearing Sy.No.62 block Nos.1 and 3 are situated in between. This aspect of the matter has been clearly appreciated by the Trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court has wrongly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent No.1 contended that there is no dispute in respect of the suit schedule properties between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Further, as rightly observed by the First Appellate Court the plaintiff's properties are situated adjacent to defendant No.1's property on the north - south side and the defendants had made attempt to interfere with the same. The said aspect of the matter has been clearly proved in the evidence of PW.1-plaintiff and Exs.P1 to 7. In such circumstance, the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:48440 RSA No. 1300 of 2019 HC-KAR
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
12. On careful perusal of the evidence and documents available on record, the sole substantial question of law that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error by relying on Ex.P5-
survey sketch and the boundaries
mentioned in Ex.D3-Sale Deed while
allowing the regular appeal and decreeing the suit?"
13. As could be gathered from records, the plaintiff has sold 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.62 to defendant No.1 as per Ex.D3-Sale Deed. Thereafter, the suit schedule properties i.e., Sy.No.43 was granted in favour of the plaintiff by the government vide order dated 12.06.2012. Though the said grant was disputed by defendant No.1, to prove the same, the plaintiff has produced the documents -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48440 RSA No. 1300 of 2019 HC-KAR Exs.P1 to P7. Defendant No.1 questioned the said grant before the Revenue Authorities. The said dispute is pending. Thus, it is clear that the title and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties are under cloud. Be that as it may, to prove the interference of the defendants in the suit schedule properties, though the plaintiff relied on Ex.P5 - Survey Sketch, the same was conducted in the year 2004 i.e., before execution of Ex.D3-Sale Deed.
14. On careful perusal of Ex.D3-Sale Deed, the boundaries of defendant No.1's property mentioned therein depicts as - Eastern side - Sy.No.63, the Western side - Sy.No.62 Block-4, Northern side - Sy.No.62 Block-3 & Sy.No.43 and Southern side - Sy.No.62 Block-1 and Sy.No.43. According to the plaintiff, his property i.e. Sy.No.43 is situated adjacent to defendant No.1's property. As discussed supra, it could be seen that in between defendant No.1's property and plaintiff's properties there exists Block Nos.1 and 3 of Sy.No.62.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48440 RSA No. 1300 of 2019 HC-KAR Though it is stated in the boundaries that block Nos.1 and 3 in Sy.No.62 and Sy.No.43 are situated, it could be gathered that in between defendant No.1's property and plaintiff's properties, in Sy.No.43, there exists block Nos.1 and 3 in Sy.No.62. The block Nos.1 and 3 being part and parcel of Sy.No.62, must be situated adjacent to the property of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. In such circumstance, without crossing block Nos.1 and 3 of Sy.No.62, the defendants cannot interfere with the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, the plaintiff has not made any effort to get the survey conducted by filing necessary application before the Trial Court to ascertain the interference of the defendants. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the First Appellate Court is not justified in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit. On the other hand, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law raised above in the "affirmative" and proceed to pass the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48440
RSA No. 1300 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree
dated 25.03.2019 passed by the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.17/2018 is set aside.
(iii) The judgment and decree dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.184/2015 is affirmed and suit is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1