Karnataka High Court
Dyavappa vs Ramappa on 7 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A. No.1473/2012 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. DYAVAPPA,
S/O KARIBASAPPA,
AGE : 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
2. RAMAPPA,
S/O BANGARAPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
3. JAGADISH,
S/O BASAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
4. SATISH,
S/O BASAPPA,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
5. LINGARAJ,
S/O KANSHIVAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
6. RANGANATH,
S/O KANSHIVAPPA,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
YADAGOPPA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SORABA TALUK - 577 201.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN, ADV.)
-2-
AND:
RAMAPPA,
S/O BANGARAPPA @ CHOTAPPA,
AGE: 78,
R/AT YADAGOPPA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SORABA TALUK - 577 021.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.RAJENDRA, ADV., FOR
SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2012
PASSED IN R.A.NO.45/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), AND JMFC., SORABA, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 06.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.91/2004
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC.,
SORAB.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is a second appeal by the defendant.
Admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendants are
relatives.
2. A suit was filed seeking for a decree of
injunction in respect of Khaneswari No.1 registered in
the 2003-04 tax payment register as No.13. The said
property, according to the plaintiff, measured on the
eastern side 8.40 metres and on the western side
12.20 metres and in the middle, it measured 15.00
metres.
3. The width of the property measured 90
metres over which there is no dispute. The dispute is
only in relation to the middle portion which was said to
be 15.00 metres by the plaintiff.
4. Both the Courts have recorded a finding that
the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and
is hence entitled for the relief of injunction.
5. This Court by an order dated 26.03.2021,
on the basis of a joint statement, in order to resolve
the controversy, directed that the suit schedule
property should be measured based on the existing live
fence surrounding the suit property. Accordingly, the
Tahsildar, Sorba Taluk was directed to visit the suit
property and draw a measurement based on the
available live fence surrounding the suit property.
6. The Tahsildar has submitted a sketch in
which he has clearly recorded that the eastern side of
the property measured 8.40 metres and the western
side measured 12.40 metres. More importantly, in the
middle portion, the Tahsildar has noticed that the
property measured 14.4 metres and 14.8 metres. This
is in accordance with the claim made by the plaintiff in
his plaint.
7. Having regard to the fact that both the
Courts have concurrently recorded a finding that the
plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as
described in the plaint and this fact has been confirmed
by the sketch of the Tahsildar dated 30.11.2021, in my
view, there is no substantial question of law that arises
in this second appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VGH
