Karnataka High Court
Mayur Patil S/O Virupakshappa Patil vs Shri.K Sugappa @ K Sanna Sugappa on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16518
RSA No. 100393 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 100341 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100393 OF 2016 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100341 OF 2016
IN RSA NO. 100393/2016
BETWEEN:
MAYUR PATIL
S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O. GANGAVATHI,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
VIRUPAKSHAPPA AMAREGOUDA PATIL,
YASHAVANT AGE: 62 YEARS,
NARAYANKAR OCC. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
Digitally signed by
R/O. LOTUS MAHAL, NEAR LIC OFFICE,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
HOSALLI ROAD, GANGAVATHI-583227,
Date: 2025.11.29
09:58:45 +0530
DIST. KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI K.SUGAPPA @ K. SANNA SUGAPPA,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O. KARATAGI-583229,
TQ. GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16518
RSA No. 100393 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 100341 of 2016
HC-KAR
2. SMT. K. MANJULA W/O. K. SUGAPPA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARATAGI-583229,
TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.
3. SMT. K.SAVITRAMMA W/O. NAGAPPA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARATAGI-583229, TQ. GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLII RULE 1 R/W SEC. 100
OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE
DATED 29.01.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GANGAVATHI IN R.A.NO.25/2010, SO FAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM
FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION IS CONCERNED AND TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2010 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE GANGAVATI IN O.S.NO.112/2005 AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DECREEING
THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.112/2005 IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE GANGAVATI AND ETC.
IN RSA NO. 100341/2016
BETWEEN:
1. K SUGAPPA @ K SANNA SUGAPPA
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARATAGI VILLAGE,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16518
RSA No. 100393 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 100341 of 2016
HC-KAR
2. K. MANJULA W/O. K. SUGAPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARATAGI VILLAGE,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
3. K. SAVITRAMMA W/O. NAGAPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARATAGI VILLAGE,
TQ. GAGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAYUR PATIL S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGAVATHI,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O AMAREGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.01.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
GANGAVATHI IN R.A. 25/2010, PARTLY ALLOWING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE GANGAVATHI, IN O.S.NO.112/2005, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16518
RSA No. 100393 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 100341 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
respondent in all the three appeals.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.25/2010 by which the judgment of
the Trial Court in O.S.No.112/2005 was partly set-aside
granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
causing interference to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of suit property.
3. This is a second round of litigation subsequent to
the remand of the matter by this Court in RSA No.6045/2011.
The factual matrix that is relevant for purpose of this appeal
had been culled out by this Court in RSA No.6045/2011 in
following words:
"The suit filed by the plaintiff before the Addl.
Civil Judge, Gangavathi, in O.S.No.112/2005 for
permanent injunction as well as mandatory
injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment over the suit land and for directing the
defendants to remove the temporary road laid
illegally on the extreme western side of the suit
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16518
HC-KAR
land has been dismissed in appeal. Hence, this
second appeal.
The suit property of the plaintiff is said to have
been purchased during his minority through his
guardian. It is stated that there is a road formed
in the property belonging to the plaintiff which
measures about 15 feet. The defendants have
tried to lay a new road in the suit land under a
wrong presumption. It is contended that the
defendants having no right over the property, to
the extent of 15 feet, have formed a road in the
land of the plaintiff. It is further contended that
the defendants trespassed the property of the
plaintiff to form the road. As such, the suit was
filed and the same was contested by the
defendants.
2. According to the stand of the defendants,
that there was no road measuring 15 feet is not
correct and neither they have formed any road
nor they have committed any trespass. Denying
the stand of the plaintiff, it is stated by the
defendants that already there was a road in
existence and there is no such encroachment. The
plaintiff taking undue advantage in the guise of
that road which was already in existence, had
filed a suit against the defendants.
3. The trial Court having framed as many as
four issues for consideration was of the opinion
that there are no documents produced though
there was alleged interference. Accordingly, the
suit came to be dismissed. However, in the appeal
before the lower appellate Court, similar stand
was taken by the defendants and the lower
appellate Court having noted that there is no
cause of action for the plaintiff to seek mandatory
injunction on two occasions and also noting
further that the said road was in existence in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16518
HC-KAR
land of Sangamma Patil, opined that definitely the
plaintiff has no case against the defendants. Also
noting that there is no piece of evidence except
the evidence of the plaintiff, it has dismissed the
appeal filed by the plaintiff. As against which, this
second appeal."
4. In RSA No.6045/2011, this Court noticed that the
existence of the road and as to whether it is in the property of
the defendants or the plaintiffs was the crux of the matter.
Therefore, this Court had remanded the matter to the First
Appellate Court with a direction that the ADLR be directed to fix
the boundaries as per the entitlement on the basis of the title
deeds. It was observed by this Court that if the road is formed
on the part of the property of the defendants, then the plaintiff
has no case and if the road comes within the plaintiff's
property, the First Appellate Court has to proceed in accordance
with law.
5. It is submitted by learned counsels appearing for
the appellants in all the appeals that subsequent to the
remand, ADLR was the Court commissioner and he has given a
report stating that the road falls within the property belonging
to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that the judgment and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16518
HC-KAR
decree of the First Appellate Court will have to prevail in
R.A.No.25/2010. In other words, the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court as well as dismissal of the appeal will
have to be upheld. Hence, both these appeals are dismissed in
view of the report of the ADLR who has categorically stated that
the road falls within the property of the plaintiff.
6. In view of the same, no substantial question of law
arises in the present appeals and as such, the appeals are
unmerited. Hence, dismissed. The judgment of the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.25/2010 dated 29.01.2016 is
confirmed.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:PA
