Karnataka High Court
Smt Sundaramma vs Sri Nagappa on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
RSA No. 378 of 2019
C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2019 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2019
IN RSA No. 378/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUNDARAMMA
W/O. SHEKHARAPPA,
HINDU, AGE 74 YEARS
2. SHEKHARAPPA
S/O RUDRAPPA BADIGER,
HINDU, AGE 84 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O BHARANGI VILLAGE,
ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK,
Digitally signed by SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
PANKAJA S
PIN:577 429
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S ANKALKOTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI NAGAPPA
S/O. ESHWARAPPA,
HINDU, AGE 62 YEARS,
2. SRI. MALATESH
S/O. ESHWARAPPA,
HINDU, AGE 52 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
RSA No. 378 of 2019
C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019
HC-KAR
BOTH ARE R/O. BHARANGI VILLAGE,
ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
PIN: 577 429
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED IN
RA NO.23/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
JMFC., COURT, SORABA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2017
PASSED IN OS NO.113/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., SORABA.
IN RSA NO. 389/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUNDARAMMA
W/O SHEKHARAPPA, HINDU
AGE 74 YEARS
2. SHEKHARAPPA
S/O RUDRAPPA BADIGER, HINDU,
AGE 84 YEARS
3. MOUNESHAPPA
S/O SHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4. GANPATHI
S/O SHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O BHARANGI VILLAGE,
ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
PIN: 577 429
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S ANKALKOTE, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
RSA No. 378 of 2019
C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
MALATHESH
S/O ESHWARAPPA
HINDU, AGE 59 YEARS
R/O BHARANGI VILLAGE,
ANAVATTI HOBLI,
SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
PIN: 577 429
AT PRESENT R/O BHATKAL
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED
IN RA NO 24/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.09.2017 PASSED IN OS NO 33/2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
RSA.378/2019 is by the plaintiff-Sundaramma and
Shekharappa, who have filed O.S.No.113/2010 seeking
permanent injunction restraining the defendants-Nagappa and
Malathesh from interfering with their peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which was dismissed
vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017 and the same was
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
affirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A No.23/2017 filed by
the said Sundaramma and Shekharappa vide judgment and
decree dated 17.11.2018.
2. RSA.No.389/2019 is by the defendants-
Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi
against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2018 of the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.24/2017, which was filed against the
judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Trial
Court in O.S.No.33/2011 filed by one Malathesh, whereby the
First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court in which the suit is decreed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred by their names.
4. It is the case of Sundramma and Shekharappa in
O.S.No.113/2010 that they are the absolute owners in
possession of suit schedule property by virtue of a Gift Deed
dated 04.11.1985 executed by one Neelappa. The revenue
entries of the suit schedule property were mutated in their
names and they were residing in the house situated in
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
Khaneshumari No.103/1. However, Nagappa and Malathesh
having no right, title or interest interfered with the possession
by making an attempt to encroach the suit schedule property of
Sundaramma and Shekharappa in the northern portion.
However, the defendants denied the plaint averments and
contended that, northern portion of the suit schedule property
was owned by one Neelappa in Khaneshumari No.80/1 and to
its northern side, there is panchayat road and in the southern
side of the said road, property bearing Khaneshumari No.80/2
is in existence. According to Nagappa and Malathesh,
khaneshumari Nos.80/2, 81 and 82 are their properties. The
boundary described in the suit schedule property is the
property bearing khaneshumari No.82 and in the said property,
Nagappa and Malathesh have constructed a hut to preserve
their items and Sundaramma, Shekharappa and their children
have disturbed their possession. Hence, the brother of Nagappa
and Malathesh one Krishnappa filed suit a in O.S No.348/1994
against Sundaramma and Shekharappa and obtained
permanent injunction. Thereafter, Shekharappa filed a suit in
O.S No.3/1995 against Nagappa, Malathesh and Krishnappa.
The said suit was dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
04.03.2004. As such, there is no cause of action arose to file
O.S No.113/2010 by Sundaramma and Shekharappa and since
the alleged interference by Sundaramma and Shekharappa in
the property of Nagappa and Malathesh is proved in O.S
No.348/1994 and O.S No.3/1995.
5. The Trial Court, after considering the rival
pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the
evidence in detail, dismissed the suit filed by Sundaramma and
Shekharappa. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, upon
reassessment of the evidence confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Regular
Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, Sundaramma and
Shekharappa are before this Court in RSA.378/2019.
6. On the other hand, it is case of Malathesh in
O.S.No.33/2011 that he is the absolute owner in possession of
property bearing khaneshumari No.82 of Barangi Village and
Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi
disturbed his possession in the suit schedule property. As such,
his brother Krishnappa filed a suit in O.S.No.348/1994 against
Sundaramma and Shekharappa for the relief of permanent
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of his brother
Krishnappa. However, the suit filed by Shekharappa in
O.S.No.3/1995 against Malathesh and his family members for
the relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. Hence, he
prayed for decree of possession in respect of suit schedule
property against Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa
and Ganapathi.
7. However, Sundaramma and her family members
denied the plaint averments and boundaries of the suit
schedule property and also denied rough sketch produced by
Malathesh in respect of the suit schedule property. According to
Sundaramma and her family members, the property bearing
Khaneshumari No.80/1 measuring 80 X 180 feet was acquired
by Sundaramma and Shekharappa through Gift deed dated
04.11.1985 and Mouneshappa s/o Sundaramma and
Shekharappa are residing in the said property for about 25
years.
8. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings
and framed the relevant issues and after examining the
evidence in detail decreed the suit filed by Malathesh. On
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
appeal by Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and
Ganapathi, the First Appellate Court, upon reassessment of
evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same,
Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi are
before this Court in RSA No.389/2019.
9. I have heard Sri Rajendra S Ankalkote for learned
counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.
10. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants is that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court have grossly erred while passing the impugned
judgments without considering the evidence and documents on
record. According to him, the appellants-Sundaramma and her
family members have acquired possession over the suit
schedule property under the registered Gift Deed dated
04.11.1985 and they are in actual possession of property
bearing Khaneshumari No.80/1 and Malathesh and Nagappa
are in possession of property bearing Khaneshumari No.80/2,
which prima facie discloses that, both properties are separate
and distinct.
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
11. Further, it is contended that, the observation in
O.S.No.3/1995 or O.S.No.348/1994 ought not have considered
by the Trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by Malathesh
and while dismissing the suit filed by Sundaramma and her
family members without considering relevant documents placed
by Sundaramma and her family members.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants
in both the appeals, so also perused the documents and
impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court.
13. As could be gathered from records, it is undisputed
that, before filing O.S.No.113/2010 by Sundaramma and
Shekarappa against Nagappa and Malathesh; Shekarappa has
filed O.S.No.3/1995 against Nagappa and Malathesh for the
relief of permanent injunction in respect of the same suit
schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on the ground
that the plaintiffs were failed to prove the interference by the
defendants.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
14. Further, Krishnappa brother of Malathesh filed a suit in
O.S.No.348/1994 against Sundaramma and her family
members for the relief of prohibitory injunction to restrain the
defendants from trespassing into the schedule property
mentioned in O.S.No.33/2011 (i.e., the suit filed by Malathesh)
and the said suit was decreed by holding that the plaintiff has
proved the description and the boundaries of the suit schedule
property and also proved his lawful possession over the suit
schedule property. The said judgment and decree has not been
challenged by Sundaramma and her family members. In such
circumstance, it is proved that Malathesh is in possession of the
suit schedule property in O.S.No.33/2011, which was interfered
by Sundramma and her family members. Whereas, the
interference of Nagappa and Malathesh in respect of the
possession of the Sundramma's property as claimed in
O.S.No.113/2010 is not proved and even in the earlier suit in
O.S.No.3/1995. Since the boundaries of the suit schedule
property is one and the same, the Trial Court and First
Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgments, which does not call for
any interference at the hands of this Court. As such there is no
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44770
HC-KAR
question of law much less substantial question of law arises for
consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals lack
merits and are dismissed. Consequently, the impugned
judgments and decree passed in O.S.No.113/2010 and
O.S.No.33/2011 passed by the Trial Court and in
R.A.No.23/2017 and R.A.No.24/2017 passed by the First
Appellate Court are upheld.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
