Karnataka High Court
Govindegowda vs K N Mahadevappa on 2 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23792
RSA No. 30 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.30 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
GOVINDEGOWDA,
S/O. KALEGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O. LATE GOVINDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
2. SRI VENKATESH,
S/O. LATE GOVINDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
3. SRI K.G. MADHU,
S/O. LATE GOVINDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
Digitally signed 4. SWAMYGOWDA,
by DEVIKA M S/O. PAPEGOWDA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
VENKATESH,
S/O. PAPEGOWDA,
DEAD BY LRS.
5. SANNATHAYAMMA,
W/O. LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
6. SATHISH K. V.
S/O. LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23792
RSA No. 30 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. GIRISH K.V.,
S/O. LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
8. SRI. PUTTEGOWDA,
S/O PAPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT
KAMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 455.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.N. MAHADEVAPPA,
S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
2. BASAVARALINGAPPA,
S/O. MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
KAMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 455.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
***
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 19.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.5001 OF 2018 ON THE
FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23792
RSA No. 30 of 2024
HC-KAR
MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATTANA)., DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.93/2009 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This matter is listed for admission and second
appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the trial court
as well as the appellate court. Both the courts came to the
conclusion that the defendants have encroached a portion of
the property of the plaintiff / respondent in Sy.No.8 that is 'B'
schedule property, which is part of the 'A' schedule property
and even Commissioner was also appointed who has also
identified the property that there was encroachment made by
the appellants herein to the extent of 2 3/4 gunta of land. The
appellate court also confirmed the same having re-assessed the
material on record particularly in para 36 and para 37 of the
NC: 2025:KHC:23792
HC-KAR
judgment and on re-appreciation has come to a definite
conclusion that there was an encroachment and dismissed the
appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal
is filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that there was a issue regarding limitation
and trial court has considered the same in issue No.4 and
answered the same considering the material on record. The
appellate court on re-appreciation of the material available on
record formulated points for its consideration. Whether the
court commissioner finding that there was an encroachment by
defendant Nos.1 to 4, 2 3/4 guntas of kharab land measuring 9
guntas in the boundary shown in A schedule property and also
Whether defendants have established that they are in exclusive
possession and enjoyment of A schedule properties more than
the statutory period of limitation. Having considered the
grounds urged in the appeal memo and formulated the points
wherein also issue of limitation is considered whether the suit
of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the same is answered
as negative and both the courts touched upon the issue of
limitation also. The other contention of learned counsel for the
NC: 2025:KHC:23792
HC-KAR
appellant is that they have perfected the title by way of
adverse possession, which has been pleaded in the written
statement and issue was also framed and material was also
considered and particularly when the commissioner was
appointed he inspected the property and given the report that
there is an encroachment to the extent of 2 3/4 guntas of land
and when such finding is given by both the courts having
considered the material on record, I do not find any error in the
order of the trial court as well as the Appellate court on re-
appreciation of question of fact and question of law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend in this second appeal both the courts have
not taken note of the sale deed and boundaries mentioned in
the sale deed and the fact that in the sale deed of the appellant
no survey number is mentioned but counsel would submit that
boundaries will prevail and with regard to the very said
contention also the court has taken note of the very report filed
by the commissioner and comes to a definite conclusion that
the appellant encroached upon the property of the plaintiff and
hence, the very contention that Ex.D2 sale deed is not
considered cannot be accepted. Having considered the grounds
NC: 2025:KHC:23792
HC-KAR
urged in the appeal, I do not find any grounds to admit the
appeal and frame any substantial questions of law.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SS
