Karnataka High Court
B M Rudregowda vs S C Latha on 18 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
RSA No. 1595 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1595 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. B.M. RUDREGOWDA
S/O LATE MULLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O KADVANTHI VILLAGE
BOGASE POST, KHANDYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 577 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S.C. LATHA
W/O B.M. DEVARAJEGOWDA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
by DEVIKA M R/O KADVANTHI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH BOGASE POST, KHANDYA HOBLI
COURT OF CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
KARNATAKA AND DISTRICT - 577 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. LOKANATHA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
RSA No. 1595 of 2024
HC-KAR
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2020
PASSED IN O.S.NO.324/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. III
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.
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. I have heard learned
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-
respondent.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while
seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the
defendant is that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the
suit property. That the husband of the plaintiff namely
Devarajegowda had executed the gift deed with respect to the
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is
growing the coffee and silver trees along with other crops in the
suit property. The plaintiff had also fenced the suit property.
Except the plaintiff, nobody have any manner of right, title and
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
interest over the suit property. The defendant without having
any right over the property is damaging the standing crops in
the suit property by letting Cattle and Buffaloes into the suit
property. Even the defendant has attempted to encroach the
suit property. The defendant is backed by political elements.
The illegal act of the defendant is resisted by the plaintiff with
great difficulty. That on 18.07.2018, the defendant and his
supporters came near the property and attempted to damage
the crops existed in the suit property. Hence, filed the suit for
the relief of permanent injunction, since he had lodged the
complaint to police, but they have not taken any action.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant
appeared and filed the written statement, wherein it is
categorically contented that the plaintiff got created the alleged
documents. Hence, plaintiff has to prove with regard to the
documents and also cause of action and further contended that
plaint schedule property originally belongs to younger brother
of the defendant by name B.M. Prasanna and said Prasanna
had acquired the said property through registered partition
deed of family partition. The plaint schedule property was
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
neither cultivated by the said Prasanna nor the plaintiff, till this
date. The plaint schedule property is wet land and the said
vacant land was used by all the family members of plaintiff and
defendant for cattle grazing and the same is not cultivated with
any crop and the same is not fenced as alleged by the plaintiff.
The suit schedule property is bifurcated and it is divided by the
road and Sy.Nos.187/6 and 187/7 measuring 12 guntas and 11
guntas respectively are not bounded with common boundaries
as alleged and shown in the plaint and they are separate pieces
of lands. The water pipe line is passed through the said suit
schedule property since from long time, which was used by the
defendant and other villagers for drinking water and irrigation
purposes. The plaintiff in order to have the favourable order
and to mislead the Court has intentionally shown wrong
boundaries to the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is
not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead
evidence. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and
admission in paragraph No.12 as well as admission in the
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
cross-examination of D.W.1 in paragraph No.16, taken note of
the very identity of the property and the defendant has not
produced any document in respect of the claim made by him.
The Trial Court also discussed the same in paragraph Nos.17
and 18 and taken note of that defendant might have right and
possession over other property, but it is not in respect of the
suit property. The defendant had not disproved the right and
possession over the suit schedule property which belongs to the
plaintiff and the document clearly discloses that plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Hence, answered point No.1 as 'affirmative' that plaintiff is in
possession of the property and with regard to the interference
is concerned, the same is also taken note of while answering
issue Nos.2 to 4 and granted the relief of permanent injunction.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed
before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.51/2022. The First
Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have
been urged in the appeal memo formulated the points whether
the Trial Court is justified in holding that plaintiff has proved
her possession over the suit schedule property, whether there
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
was interference by the defendant and whether it requires
interference of the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate
Court also having considered both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record in paragraph No.18 taken note of
existence of road leading to the house of the plaintiff and also
taken note that the same leads only to the house of the plaintiff
and though the defendant admits the road leading to house of
the plaintiff and proceeds further to a hill, towards hill side, he
has no lands or the house. Then the defendant is having a right
to use such road is not acceptable. Further, the First Appellate
Court also comes to the conclusion that no case is made out
that apart from the defendant any other persons having the
lands are house after the house of plaintiff to use the said road,
therefore the contention of defendant that the road exists in
suit schedule properties is the public road is not acceptable and
reasoning is given that on the guise of road, the defendant is
interfering with possession of the plaintiff and the very
contention in written statement is also discussed in detail in
paragraph No.19. Though, it is contended that boundaries are
not specifically mentioned and it is not the common boundary,
the same is discussed in paragraph No.21 by the Trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not shown in the
schedule of the plaint or in the averments of the plaint with
respect to existence of road. That apart, defendant to show any
of the boundaries shown in the schedule of the plaint to the
schedule property is incorrect, no evidence is placed on record
and taking note of the same, comes to the conclusion that
defendant admitted the existence of suit schedule properties
and in the absence of any material to show boundaries are
incorrect, contention of the defendant cannot be accepted and
confirmed the judgment of Trial Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly
contend that Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is
in possession of the suit schedule properties and also contend
that both the Courts grossly erred in granting the prayer of
permanent injunction without considering the aspect that
properties which are not having specific identification or
boundaries by which plaintiff fails to prove exact possession of
the properties as on the date of suit. Hence, this Court has to
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
admit the second appeal and frame the substantial question of
law.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the caveator-
respondent would submit that the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court not committed any error and taken note of the
possession as well as identity of the property.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent and also
considering the factual aspects of the case, the prayer made by
the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that defendant is causing
interference for enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The
records also reveal that plaintiff had purchased the property
from the brother of the defendant i.e. from one Mr. Prasanna.
It has also emerged from the records that there was a partition
between Mr. Prasanna and defendant and it is also very clear
that in the admission on the part of D.W.1 which is considered
by the Trial Court in paragraph No.16, he categorically
admitted the very identity of the property of the plaintiff i.e.,
his property is in the lower portion and the property of the
plaintiff is in the upper portion. Hence, with regard to the
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
identity of the property is concerned, there is an admission and
he would also submit that he would get water from upper
portion to lower portion of the property and also categorically
admits that road is in existence for use as it existed earlier and
also categorically admits that he is not having any right in
respect of the suit schedule property. But, only claims that
there is a road and he has got right over the road and hence, it
is clear that there is interference on the part of the defendant
and taking into note of this admission, the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that defendant is interfering with possession of
the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property on the
guise that there exists a road and it appears that the plaintiff
had purchased the property of his brother and he is troubling
the plaintiff.
10. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the
material available on record, particularly in paragraph Nos. 18
and 21 made an observation that it is relevant to note that
defendant admits the road leading to the house of the plaintiff
and proceeds further to a hill, towards hill side, he has no lands
or the house. Then the defendant is having a right to use such
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
road is not acceptable, since he is not having any land even
after the road which is in existence. Further, no case is made
out apart from the defendant that any other persons having the
lands or house after the house of plaintiff to use the said road.
Therefore, the contention of the defendant that road exists in
suit schedule properties is the public road is also not
acceptable. The First Appellate Court also with regard to the
contention in written statement discussed in paragraph No.19
and so also with regard to the description is concerned in
paragraph No.21 comes to the conclusion that defendant
though disputed the description of the property, not given
correct description of the property and both question of fact
and question of law is considered by the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court and it appears that the appellant is the
neighbouring owner of the land and even specific admission is
given with regard to very existence of the property of the
plaintiff and clear admission is given that he is not having any
right over the suit schedule properties and also admits that
there exists road.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
11. No doubt, Exs.D1 and D2 are confronted to the
plaintiff, the same is admitted that there exists a road and both
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note
that even if road proceeds further, the defendant is not having
any other property after the house of the plaintiff which is in
existence and the plaintiff is having said road and when such
property is not in existence after the house of the plaintiff, it is
clear that he is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff
and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court. Hence, answered all the issues in 'affirmative',
in coming to the conclusion that there is a clear admission on
the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination that he is not
having any right over the suit schedule properties and no
property in existence after the house of the plaintiff. When such
being the case, it clearly discloses that without any right, the
defendant is interfering with possession of the plaintiff, on the
guise that there exists a road and the same is considered by
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not
find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any
substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47282
HC-KAR
12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
