Karnataka High Court

E B Sheshappa vs G R Chandrashekara on 24 November, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:48440
                                                          RSA No. 1300 of 2019


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                                 BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2019 (INJ)

                      BETWEEN:


                            E B SHESHAPPA
                            S/O BELLAIAH GOWDA
                            AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                            R/O ELIMANE, NALUR POST
                            AGUMBE HOBLI
                            THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432
                            SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. P.N HARISH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH        AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      1.    G R CHANDRASHEKARA
                            S/O RAMAPPA GOWDA
                            AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
                            R/O GUDDEKERI AT/POST
                            AGUMBE HOBLI
                            THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432
                            SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:48440
                                    RSA No. 1300 of 2019


HC-KAR




2.   M.H DEVARAJ
     S/O HOLIYAPPA GOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     R/O MEDOLIGE
     KENDALBYLU POST
     AGUMBE HOBLI
     THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432
     SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHARADA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
     SRI. ASHWATH C.M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2019

PASSED IN RA NO.17/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI. ALLOWING THE APPEAL

AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

12.06.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.184/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI.


      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT

ON 20.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                                 -3-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:48440
                                           RSA No. 1300 of 2019


HC-KAR




                        CAV JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal is by defendant No.1.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction

against defendants, restraining the defendants and their

agents, representatives, from in any way interfering with

the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment in the

suit schedule properties.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute

owner in possession of garden land in Sy.No.43 measuring

6 guntas and 9 guntas of Honnethalu Village, Thirthahalli

Taluk under different boundaries (for brevity, "suit

schedule properties"). The said land was granted by the

government vide order dated 12.06.2012 to the plaintiff

and he has been in possession and cultivation of entire 15

guntas of said land since 20 years. Further, defendant

No.1 had purchased garden land of the plaintiff in

Sy.No.62 measuring 39 guntas of Honnethalu village. The

lands in said Sy.Nos.62 and 43 are adjacent to each other.

The plaintiff has been in cultivation of 15 guntas of land in

NC: 2025:KHC:48440

HC-KAR

Sy.No.43 i.e., 9 guntas in one side and 6 guntas in

another side of the said land and has been in continuous

possession of the same. However, defendant No.1 agreed

to sell 39 guntas of garden land in Sy.No.62, which was

purchased from the plaintiff, to defendant No.2 and by

virtue of the same, the defendants interfered with the suit

schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit

for the relief of permanent injunction against the

defendants.

4. On service of summons, defendants appeared and

filed separate written statements denying the averments

of the plaint and also disputing the boundary of the suit

schedule properties and contending that there is no cause

of action to file the suit and as such, defendants prayed to

dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings,

framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence

in detail, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground

NC: 2025:KHC:48440

HC-KAR

that the plaintiff has failed to prove the location, identity

and boundaries of the suit schedule properties as claimed

in the plaint and his possession over the same.

6. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court,

upon re-appreciation of evidence, has observed that the

Trial Court has erred while dismissing the suit by relying

on the error in the boundaries mentioned in respect of suit

schedule properties in Ex.D3 - Sale Deed executed by the

plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. According to the First

Appellate Court, Ex.D3 - Sale Deed clearly depicts that on

the north - south of defendant No.1's property, lands in

Sy.No.62 block-3 and Sy.No.43 are situated. Thus, it is

clear that plaintiff's properties in Sy.No.43 is situated on

the north - south side of defendant No.1's property. As

such, the plaintiff has proved the title, possession and

interference of the defendants in the suit schedule

properties. The First Appellate Court has allowed the

appeal and decreed the suit accordingly.

NC: 2025:KHC:48440

HC-KAR

7. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 is before this

Court.

8. I have heard Sri P.N.Harish, learned counsel for the

appellant, Smt.Sharada N., learned counsel for respondent

No.1 and Sri Ashwath C.M., learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant No.1 is that the First Appellate Court

has grossly erred in allowing the appeal by only relying on

the boundaries mentioned in Ex.D3 that the plaintiff's

properties are situated on the north - south side of

defendant No.1's property. According to him, in Ex.D3 -

Sale Deed, it is specifically stated that to the north - south

side of defendant No.1's property, Sy.No.62, block-3 and

block-1 are situated and thereafter, Sy.No.43 is situated.

In such circumstance, defendant No.1 cannot interfere

with the plaintiff's properties by crossing block-1 and 3 of

Sy.No.62. He further contended that the property of the

NC: 2025:KHC:48440

HC-KAR

plaintiff and defendant No.1 are bifurcated and property

bearing Sy.No.62 block Nos.1 and 3 are situated in

between. This aspect of the matter has been clearly

appreciated by the Trial Court and accordingly, dismissed

the suit. However, the First Appellate Court has wrongly

allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Accordingly, he

prays to allow the appeal.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for

plaintiff/respondent No.1 contended that there is no

dispute in respect of the suit schedule properties between

the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Further, as rightly

observed by the First Appellate Court the plaintiff's

properties are situated adjacent to defendant No.1's

property on the north - south side and the defendants had

made attempt to interfere with the same. The said aspect

of the matter has been clearly proved in the evidence of

PW.1-plaintiff and Exs.P1 to 7. In such circumstance, the

First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:48440

HC-KAR

11. I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties

and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed

by both the Courts.

12. On careful perusal of the evidence and documents

available on record, the sole substantial question of law

that arises for my consideration is:

"Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error by relying on Ex.P5-

           survey       sketch     and    the     boundaries
           mentioned      in     Ex.D3-Sale     Deed     while

allowing the regular appeal and decreeing the suit?"

13. As could be gathered from records, the plaintiff has

sold 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.62 to defendant No.1 as

per Ex.D3-Sale Deed. Thereafter, the suit schedule

properties i.e., Sy.No.43 was granted in favour of the

plaintiff by the government vide order dated 12.06.2012.

Though the said grant was disputed by defendant No.1, to

prove the same, the plaintiff has produced the documents

NC: 2025:KHC:48440

HC-KAR

Exs.P1 to P7. Defendant No.1 questioned the said grant

before the Revenue Authorities. The said dispute is

pending. Thus, it is clear that the title and possession of

the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties are

under cloud. Be that as it may, to prove the interference

of the defendants in the suit schedule properties, though

the plaintiff relied on Ex.P5 - Survey Sketch, the same was

conducted in the year 2004 i.e., before execution of

Ex.D3-Sale Deed.

14. On careful perusal of Ex.D3-Sale Deed, the

boundaries of defendant No.1's property mentioned

therein depicts as - Eastern side - Sy.No.63, the Western

side - Sy.No.62 Block-4, Northern side - Sy.No.62 Block-3

& Sy.No.43 and Southern side - Sy.No.62 Block-1 and

Sy.No.43. According to the plaintiff, his property i.e.

Sy.No.43 is situated adjacent to defendant No.1's

property. As discussed supra, it could be seen that in

between defendant No.1's property and plaintiff's

properties there exists Block Nos.1 and 3 of Sy.No.62.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48440

HC-KAR

Though it is stated in the boundaries that block Nos.1 and

3 in Sy.No.62 and Sy.No.43 are situated, it could be

gathered that in between defendant No.1's property and

plaintiff's properties, in Sy.No.43, there exists block Nos.1

and 3 in Sy.No.62. The block Nos.1 and 3 being part and

parcel of Sy.No.62, must be situated adjacent to the

property of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. In such

circumstance, without crossing block Nos.1 and 3 of

Sy.No.62, the defendants cannot interfere with the suit

schedule property of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, the plaintiff

has not made any effort to get the survey conducted by

filing necessary application before the Trial Court to

ascertain the interference of the defendants. In such

circumstance, in my considered view, the First Appellate

Court is not justified in allowing the appeal and decreeing

the suit. On the other hand, the Trial Court has rightly

dismissed the suit. Accordingly, I answer the substantial

question of law raised above in the "affirmative" and

proceed to pass the following:

- 11 -

                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:48440



HC-KAR




                                ORDER


      i)      The appeal is allowed.


      (ii)    The impugned judgment and decree
      dated     25.03.2019      passed       by   the    First