[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Yenjappa vs Sri Gangappa on 16 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53520
RSA No. 870 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.870 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. YENJAPPA
S/O. BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2. SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O. ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
3. SRI VENKATACHALAIAH
S/O. GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE
SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. GANGAPPA
S/O. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE
SASALU HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53520
RSA No. 870 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.345/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE C/C. PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
DODDABALLAPUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the
Trial Court is that suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff
and he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and
NC: 2025:KHC:53520
HC-KAR
defendants made an attempt to interfere with his possession
over the suit schedule property. Hence, sought for the relief of
permanent injunction.
4. The defendants appeared and filed written
statement denying the very possession of the plaintiff and
when the evidence was led in before the Trial Court, D.W.1
categorically admitted that plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property and though denied the same in the written
statement. Hence, the Trial Court considering denial by the
defendants with regard to possession of the property by the
plaintiff, while answering issue Nos.2 and 4, comes to the
conclusion that defendants have contended that plaintiff is not
in possession of the suit schedule property and the said
contention of the defendants reveal that they have denied the
rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property without
any proof. Hence, the conduct of the defendants amounts to an
interference and passed an order of permanent injunction.
5. Being aggrieved by the said finding, an appeal is
filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate
Court also on re-application of both oral and documentary
NC: 2025:KHC:53520
HC-KAR
evidence, particularly considering the admission on the part of
D.W.1 and also the fact that appellants are not denying the title
to the extent of 2 acres 2 guntas of land which had been
purchased by the plaintiff, confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present
second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants brought to notice
of this Court admission on the part of P.W.1, wherein he
categorically says that when he started to construct a house in
the year 2008, the defendants started interfering with his
possession and with regard to interference is concerned, he has
not given any complaint to the Police or to the Panchayath and
thereafter, they have not given any trouble. Hence, referring
this admission, the counsel would contend that when there was
no interference by the defendants, question of granting the
relief of permanent injunction does not arise.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also on perusal of the material on record, the Trial Court with
regard to possession is concerned, taken note of admission on
the part of D.W.1 in the cross examination, who categorically
NC: 2025:KHC:53520
HC-KAR
admits possession of plaintiff's property and while granting the
relief with regard to interference is concerned while answering
issue Nos.2 and 4, taken note that in the written statement
specifically denied the right and possession of the plaintiff.
However, admits the same in the cross examination. Hence,
the Trial Court taken note of conduct of the defendants which
amounts to interference and when he has denied the very
possession and right over the property, granted the relief and
when such averment is taken note of in the written statement
and admission was given during the course of cross-
examination, but specifically denied very right and possession
of the plaintiff in the written statement. When such being the
case, the Trial Court taken note of the said fact into
consideration and the First Appellate Court also while
considering the material on record, particularly admission on
the part of D.W.1 extracted in paragraph No.16 that towards
the western side of acquired land in Sy.No.75/4 measuring 2
acres 2 guntas belongs to the plaintiff i.e., suit schedule
property. According to him, he is in possession of vacant site.
In the cross-examination of P.W.1, defendants have suggested
that defendant Nos.3 to 6 have already constructed house in
NC: 2025:KHC:53520
HC-KAR
the allotted sites, but P.W.1 is giving contrary statement
stating that he is in possession of the vacant site. D.W.1 also
further admitted that plaintiff is growing Ragi, Corn and other
crops in the suit schedule property measuring 2 acres 2 guntas
and towards north to south, there is a road and towards
eastern side, there is a site and western side, there is
remaining land belonging to the plaintiff and his site comes in
the land acquired by the Government and this admission was
taken note of and confirmed the order passed by the Trial
Court. When such being the case, when there was denial of
right and also possession of the suit schedule property by the
appellants and the very contention that the admission takes
away the case of plaintiff cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not
find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any
substantial question of law and with regard to interference is
concerned, the trial Court has taken note of the same while
answering issue Nos.2 and 4 and no perversity is found in the
findings of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
NC: 2025:KHC:53520
HC-KAR
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53
