Karnataka High Court
B Devaraj vs Smt Susheela on 25 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
RSA No. 138 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.138 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. B. DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA
NO.6, 4TH MAIN ROAD
KALYANAGARA
MUDALPALLYA
BENGALURU-560 072.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU B.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUSHEELA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
Digitally signed D/O LATE L.T. KORAGAPPA
by DEVIKA M
AGRICULTURIST
Location: HIGH RAVATHANAKERE
COURT OF BASRURU VILLAGE AND POST
KARNATAKA
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 211.
2. JAYANTHI BHASKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
D/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA
NOW RESIDING AT NO.99
NEW NO.19, 3RD MAIN ROAD
SANJEEVINI NAGAR
MOODLAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 072.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
RSA No. 138 of 2025
HC-KAR
SMT. B. VIMALA (DEAD)
D/O LATE K.T.KORAGAPPA
3. SAROJINI KESHAV
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O LATE B. VIMALA
SHREENIKETHANA
MANIPURA VILLAGE AND POST
UDUPI TALUK-576 120.
4. T. SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE B. VIMALA
SRI KRISHNA STORES
KEMMANNU VILLAGE AND POST
UDUPI TALUK-576 115.
5. SHARADA SHIVARAM
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
D/O LATE B. VIMALA
MAIN ROAD
HERURU VILLAGE AND POST
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 213.
6. SHYAMALA SUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
D/O LATE B. VIMALA
SRI KRISHNA COFFEE SUPPLIERS
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD
HUNSOOR POST
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
7. SRIPATHI RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE B. VIMALA
NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD
UPPOOR, K.G.ROAD
BRAHMAVARA TALUK-576 105.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
RSA No. 138 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. SRIKANTH RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE B. VIMALA
NEAR OLD CITY HOSPITAL
UDUPI TOWN
UDUPI-576 101.
9. POORNIMA R. RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D/O LATE B. VIMALA
SRINIDHI ENTERPRISES
DODDABOMMASANDRA
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU-560 097.
SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA (DEAD)
D/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA.
10. RAMA DEVI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O LATE B.N. RAMESH
11. ROSHANI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
12. ARJUN
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.11 AND 12 ARE
CHILDREN OF LATE B.N. RAMESH.
RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 12 ARE
R/O GANESH CYCLE STORES
MAIN ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND
POST: HOSADURGA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
13. B.N. SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA
MOHAN CYCLE STORES
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
RSA No. 138 of 2025
HC-KAR
BEHIND HOTEL ASHOK
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
14. B.N. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA
PRAGATHI FORM HOUSE
OLD SIGEBAGI ROAD
POST: BADRA COLONY
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.
15. B.N. VASUDEVA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA
WARD NO.26
BEHIND POLICE QAUARTERS
ASHOK NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.
16. SHAILA RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA
MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS ROAD
BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS
ASHOK NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.
17. JYOTHI RATHNAKAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA
MANDARA
BEHIND MORE SUPER MARKET
DERALAKATTE JUNCTION
MANGALURU-575 002.
18. B.N. PRADEEP
AGED ABUOT 49 YEARS
S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA
PRAGATI FORM HOUSE
OLD SIGEBAGI ROAD
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
RSA No. 138 of 2025
HC-KAR
POST: BADRA COLONY
BADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.
19. REKHA VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA
NEAR MAIN ROAD
KINNIMULKI
UDUPI-576 101.
SMT. PREMA (DEAD)
D/O ALTE K.T.KORAGAPPA
20. PRASHANTH M.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O PREMA,
RAHUTKERI
BASRUR-576 211.
21. HIMAKARA A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
H/O LATE SMT. VEENA
22. NISHANTHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE SMT. VEENA
23. NEELIMA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D/O LATE SMT. VEENA
RESPONDENTS NO.21 TO 23 ARE
R/O BANTAMALE, SULYA
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 239.
24. HEMAVATHI RAJKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
D/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA
W/O RAJKUMAR
FORESTER
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
RSA No. 138 of 2025
HC-KAR
NEAR BUS STAND
HEMMADI VILLAGE AND POST
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576 230.
25. SUHAS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O DEVARAJ
DWARAKANAGAR
CHANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE FOR R20 TO R23;
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2025,
APPEAL AGAINST R3 TO R19, R24 AND R25 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
MODIFIED THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2023
PASSED IN FDP NO.9/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
RSA No. 138 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsels for respondent No.1, 2 and 20 to 23.
2. This second appeal is filed against the order of the
First Appellate Court. This matter was heard in length and this
Court even appointed a fresh Court Commissioner and the
Court Commissioner has furnished a sketch before this Court
after surveying the land and inspite of the same, the dispute is
not solved.
3. Now, the parties themselves have settled the
matter as suggested by the Court and the issue is only with
regard to road leading to the property i.e., plot Nos.1 and 2
and there was shortfall of road to go to plot No.2 and the same
is the major portion of the property which belongs to the
family. Now, the parties have come up with a settlement that,
in addition to the road which has already been formed by owner
of plot No.1, the owner of plot No.2, parties have also agreed
to form a road in respect of portion of the property which was
allotted to them to go to his property and both the roads would
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
HC-KAR
be for common usage. Hence, in view of the settlement arrived
between the parties, now it becomes common entrance for
both the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2 and each of the parties
have no objection to form the road and they have also
undertaken that either of them will not cause any hurdle for
usage of common entrance from the main road either to go to
plot No.1 or to plot No.2. The owner of plot No.1 has also
agreed to leave 2 feet length and width of space, in order to
reach the plot No.2 connecting the common entrance to expand
the area and owner of plot No.2 has agreed that in lieu of
leaving the space of 2 feet length and width to owner of plot
No.1, the said space will be compensated by giving the same
on the other side of the property, that means, the plot will be
readjusted in view of this arrangement between the parties and
no dispute with regard to the said fact.
4. Now the parties have prepared a rough sketch and
the same is produced before the Court and common entrance in
respect of both plot Nos.1 and 2 is shown in 'yellow' colour in
the sketch prepared by the parties and these changes are only
between the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2. The owners of plot
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
HC-KAR
Nos.3 and 4 are also happy with the arrangement between the
owners of plot Nos.1 and 2 and the owners of plot Nos.3 and 4
have also agreed to abide by the order passed by the First
Appellate Court and also the FDP Court. The owner of plot No.3
also to remove the shed which is in existence in the place of
common entrance which is shown in 'yellow' colour in the rough
sketch and should not cause any hurdle for formation of
common entrance to plot Nos.1 and 2. In view of this
compromise between parties, the rough sketch which is shown
in 'yellow' colour becomes the part and parcel of this order to
make it clear with regard to the terms of the compromise
between the parties. It is made it clear that none of the parties
should cause any obstruction for usage of each plot which
belongs to Smt. Jayanthi Bhaskar Rao, plot No.2 which belongs
to Sri B. Devaraj, plot No.3 which belongs to Smt. Susheela
and plot No.4 which belongs to Smt. Prema in future.
5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
owner of plot No.1 has already removed the trees which were
in the passage which they have already sold and the owner of
plot No.2 should not raise any objection to the same and even
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48605
HC-KAR
the owner of plot No.1 also should not raise any objection while
forming the common entrance in the property allotted to the
owner of plot No.2 for removing the trees and disposal of the
same. The owner of plot Nos.3 and 4 also shall not claim any
right over of common entrance leading to plot Nos.1 and 2 and
they are not having any right to claim the same.
Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
