Karnataka High Court
Sayedsab S/O Imamsab Jargaddi vs Paravva W/O Shivaraj Patil on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15521
RSA No. 100456 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100456 OF 2022 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SAYEDSAB S/O. IMAMSAB JARGADDI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI,
TQ. DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PARAVVA W/O. SHIVARAJ PATIL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2. VIJAY S/O. SHIVARAJ PATIL,
2025.11.14
10:21:38
+0530
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC. GOUNDI WORK,
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-582104.
3. BASAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA HULLAMBI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
PARASHURAM S/O. BASAPPA KAMADHENU,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15521
RSA No. 100456 of 2022
HC-KAR
TQ. KALGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
4. SMT. NAGINI W/O. PARASHURAM KAMADHENU,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI,
DIST, DHARWAD-581204.
5. MANJUNATH S/O. PARASHURAM KAMADHENU,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI,
DIST, DHARWAD-581204.
6. RAVI S/O. PARASHURAM KAMADHENU,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI,
DIST, DHARWAD-581204.
7. SMT. SAVITA W/O. MAILARI MAJIGOUDAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. DEVIKOPPA VILLAGE:,
TQ. KALGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.K. GURUBASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R7)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.95/2014 DATED 23.04.2021 PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS, KALAGHATAGI AND ALLOW O.S.NO.54/2010FILED BY THE
APPELLANT ON THE FILES OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KALAGHATAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15521
RSA No. 100456 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit for injunction
in O.S.No.54/2010 before learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kalaghatagi. The said suit came to be dismissed on the ground
that the specific measurement of the property of the plaintiff was
not established and as such, the injunction could not be granted.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant approached the
First Appellate Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kalaghatagi in R.A.No.95/2014.
3. Despite the Court Commissioner's report was
available before the First Appellate Court, it also came to the
conclusion that, there is nothing on record to show the
measurement of the property owned by the plaintiff and
therefore, it would not be possible to ascertain the property so as
to grant the injunction. It also observed that no documentary
evidence was also available to show possession of the plaintiff.
Holding so, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15521
HC-KAR
4. The controversy between the parties relates to an
open space adjoining the house property of the plaintiff. It is his
case that in the open space adjoining the house property of the
plaintiff, he has constructed a cow shed and the defendants
claiming that the plaintiff do not have any right, title or interest
over the same, had tried to demolish the said cowshed and
therefore, there was a need for filing a suit for injunction.
5. Per contra, the defendants have contended that they
have purchased the property from the erstwhile owners who
possessed a larger chunk of the property and as such, there is
no such open space belonging to the plaintiff. They contended
that the plaintiff was in permissive possession under the
grandfather of the defendants and therefore, the plaintiff cannot
be held to be entitled for any injunction. In other words, the
defendants contended that the plaintiff has no right, title or
interest to claim any right in the open space which was the suit
property.
6. In light of the above contentions, the Trial Court held
that the plaintiff has not proved his lawful possession over the
suit schedule property, which is the open space adjoining his
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15521
HC-KAR
house. The Panchayat records which were produced before the
Trial Court, did not mention any measurement of the property.
Therefore, the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the
suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. The First Appellate Court, though appointed a Court
Commissioner, the report was insufficient to establish the
measurement and such holding of the plaintiff over the property.
What the Court Commissioner did was only to identify the
property and make a report which is nothing more than a hand
sketch map as prepared by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the
suit. Therefore, when the defendants contend that they are the
title holders in respect of a larger chunk of the property adjoining
the property of the plaintiff, the exact measurement of the
property and how the plaintiff came in possession and enjoyment
of the same and since how long he is in possession of the
property need to be established. It may also be noted that the
defendants had raised a question as to whether the plaintiff had
the title. In that view of the matter, the First Appellate Court also
came to the conclusion that the suit for injunction is not
sustainable.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15521
HC-KAR
8. In light of the above, there do not exist any
substantial question of law which need to be adjudicated by this
Court. The scope of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure do not
permit this Court to go into the factual aspects when the
defendants have stoutly denied the right of the plaintiff stating
that he is only in a permissive possession. In that view of the
matter, no substantial question of law arises in the present
appeal and as such, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:PA
