Karnataka High Court
Sri Jaiprakash vs Sri Shivasharnappa on 11 August, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
RSA No. 723 of 2008
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2008 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. JAIPRAKASH
S/O MANIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS,
2. CHANDERAYYA
S/O VEERABHYADRAYYA SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. RETIRED SERVANT,
3. TANNAJIRAO
S/O KESHAVARAO,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA OCC: GOVT. RETIRED SERVANT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. BHASKAR
KARNATAKA S/O CHANDERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. RETIRED SERVANT,
5. PRAVATIBAI
W/O SHAMRAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. NIRMALA
W/O MADHAKARRAO,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
RSA No. 723 of 2008
HC-KAR
7. PREMILABAI
D/O SHANKARARAO GORKHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: GOVT. RETIRED,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
8. SHOBA
W/O SRIDAHRARAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. RETIRED,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
9. PREMILABAI
W/O VITHALRAO,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
10. SHARANAPPA
S/O NURENDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
11. BALKRISHNA
S/O MANOHARRAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. RETIRED,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
12. SHIVAJIRAO
S/O KESHAVARAO,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
13. PRABHAKAR
S/O VAMANRAO,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
RSA No. 723 of 2008
HC-KAR
14. ASHOK KUMAR
S/O GANGADHAR BEDU,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
15. SHASHIKALA
W/O RAMESH YACHOL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSHEOLD,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
16. SUREKHA
W/O BHARATH DANAWADKAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSHEOLD,
RESIDENT OF PROPER BIDAR.
ALL ARE R/AT PROPER CITY TALUK AND DIST:
BIDAR.
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI ANNAPPA
S/O SHANKARAPPA NAGURE,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VIDHYANAGAR COLONY
PROPER BIDAR - 504 801.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVASHARNAPPA
S/O BHEEMARAO PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT: NIZAMPUR,
TQ : AND DIST: BIDAR.
2. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O BADHESHYAM GOEL,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
RSA No. 723 of 2008
HC-KAR
AGED 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: MADAN MOHAN MARKET,
BIDAR - 504 801.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEERANI, ADVCOATE FOR
SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO PASS A JUDGMENT AND DECREE BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN .R.A.NO.46 OF
2006 DATED 11.12.2007, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE(SR.DN) BIDAR, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.64 OF 2005 DATED 22.06.2006,
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN), BIDAR, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL WITH COST,
THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful
plaintiffs challenging the Judgment and decree dated
11.12.2007 passed in R.A.No.46/2006 by Principal Civil
Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bidar, wherein, the Judgment and decree
dated 15.06.2006 passed in O.S.No.64/2005 by the Principal
Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bidar, has been affirmed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The appeal came to be admitted to consider the
following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in
relying upon the Judgment in the case of Janaki
Vasudeo Bhoj Wani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd.
and others, reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 729 in disposing
of the suit?
(ii) Whether the Courts below properly
weighed the evidence led by the appellants and
respondents in deciding against the appellants"
4. The appellants/plaintiffs filed suit in
O.S.No.64/2005 against the respondent/defendants seeking
relief of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from
interfering in peaceful possession of suit schedule properties.
The suit schedule properties described are Survey
Nos.93/1/B and 93/1/C, duly converted into non-agricultural
land vide NA No.CR-3/85-86 dated 24.03.1986 and approved
layout bearing No.MEEP-RPE/Layout/86-87 dated 25.05.1987
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
HC-KAR
as per the map annexed to the plaint and bounded as
follows:
East : 30 meters wide vacant land, thereafter
railway track;
West : 15 meter wide road in the layout of
plaintiffs and thereafter plots of the
plaintiffs;
North: Land Sy.No.88 and 85;
South: Land Sy.No.98 of others.
5. The plaintiffs contend that, the defendant is
interfering in plaintiffs' possession over the suit schedule
properties. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs.
The trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
in joint possession of the suit property on the date of
the suit?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove the
interference of the defendants in the suit property as
stated in the plaint?
(iii) Whether suit of the plaintiffs is in the
present form maintainable?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction as sought?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
HC-KAR
(v) What decree or order?
6. The power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs has
been examined as P.W.1 and another witness has been
examined as P.W.2 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10. The defendant No.1 has been examined as D.W.1
and got marked documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.27. The trial
Court after hearing the arguments from both sides,
appreciated the evidence on record and answered issue
Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the negative and issue No.3 in the
affirmative and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs aggrieved by the said Judgment, filed
R.A.No.46/2006. The first appellate Court after hearing the
arguments and re-appreciating the evidence on record, has
dismissed the said appeal filed by the plaintiffs by confirming
the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that, the evidence of General Power of Attorney
Holder has not been considered even in spite of the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janaki Vasudeo
Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Limited and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
HC-KAR
others reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 729. He further submits
that, the evidence on record has not been properly
appreciated by both the Courts.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that, even if the evidence of the General Power of Attorney
Holder is taken into consideration, the evidence on record
will not establish the case of the plaintiffs. The trial Court
and the appellate Court have rightly appreciated and re-
appreciated the evidence on record and rightly dismissed the
suit of the plaintiffs.
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for
both sides, this Court has perused the impugned Judgments
of the trial Court and appellate Court and the materials
placed on record.
10. The suit schedule properties contains two
properties bearing Survey No.93/1/B and 93/1/C. The extent
of each of the said two properties has not been stated in the
plaint. The sale deed produced at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 pertains
to Survey No.93/1/C. The sale deed pertains to Survey
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
HC-KAR
No.93/1/B has not been produced. The plaintiffs have not
stated in the plaint the number of plots formed in the layout.
The plaintiffs contended that, the defendant/respondent tried
to demarcate the boundaries in a red colour area shown in
the map enclosed to the plaint. Considering the said aspect,
the trial Court has not accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2. The defendant who led evidence has produced sale
deed in respect of Survey Nos.93/7 and 92/7 of Haladkeri
village and the revenue records are shown in the name of
defendant and they are at Ex.D.4 to D.11 and D.14 to D.20.
11. The trial Court has not believed the evidence of
P.W.1 on the ground that, he is a General Power of Attorney
Holder of plaintiffs. Therefore, the question of considering
the substantial question of law at Sl.No.1 does not arise. The
trial Court has rightly observed that the evidence of P.W.1
does not establish that the defendant has interfered in the
suit schedule properties. Considering the evidence on record,
the trial Court has rightly observed that the boundaries of
suit lands shown in the map annexed to the plaint and the
boundaries of the suit land shown in the suit are entirely
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4560
HC-KAR
different. Considering these aspects, the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the
suit of the plaintiffs. The appellate Court has also re-
appreciated the evidence on record and rightly dismissed the
appeal of the appellants/plaintiffs.
12. In view of the above, the substantial question of
law at Sl.No.2 is answered accordingly and the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SVH
