Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthappa vs Mr. P.B. Nagaraj on 6 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
RSA No. 1275 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1275 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA GANJI
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O 1701/5, MOTHI DODDAPPA LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE, REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. T.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O VEDAVATHI HOTEL,
OPP CHAMUNDESHWARI THEATRE,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577004.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI.B.R.VISWANAM, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
MR. P.B. NAGARAJ
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
OCC: COOLI WORKER IN BAKERY
R/O NITTUVALLI ROAD, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL
DAVANAGERE-577002
...RESPONDENT
(V/O DTD: 24.10.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT H/S)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
RSA No. 1275 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2020
PASSED IN RA.NO.82/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN OS No.477/2011
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.
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. Heard arguments
of learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This regular second appeal is filed against the
concurrent findings of the trial Court.
3. The trial Court granted the relief of permanent
injunction, however, it dismissed the suit for declaration.
The same was challenged by the appellant/defendant
before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, having
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
HC-KAR
reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available
on record, framed the following points for considerations.
I. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
peaceful position and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property?
II. Whether the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the Learned Prl.Civil
Judge, Davanagere, in O.S.No.477/2011,
dated 01.07.2019 is illegal, perverse and
liable to be set and aside?
III. What order or decree
4. On reassessing both oral and documentary
evidence, the Appellate Court, in detail paragraph Nos.17
and 18, discussed that the property claimed by the
defendant and also the plaintiff's property are different,
but both are adjacent to each other and with regard to the
encroachment attempt made by the plaintiff was not
substantiated. Accordingly, the appellate Court confirmed
the judgment of the trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the trial Court and Appellate Court, the present second
appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contentions of the counsel appearing
for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts
committed an error in granting the relief of permanent
injunction. It is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that the substantial question
of law involved in this appeal is "whether the trial Court is
justified in allowing the suit partly filed by the respondent
and dismissing the regular appeal by the appellate Court
by confirming the findings of the fact arrived at by the trial
Court at the first instance".
7. Learned counsel would vehemently contend
that both the Courts have not properly applied their
minds. Accordingly, to the appellant, when the plaintiff is
making an attempt to interfere with the appellant's
property and the he already obtained a decree in respect
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
HC-KAR
of his property in O.S No.162/1992 and when such being
the case, the trial Court ought not to have granted the
relief of permanent injunction.
8. Having heard the appellant counsel and having
perused the grounds urged in the second appeal and also
considering the schedule mentioned in the plaint in OS No.
477/2011, the suit was filed for the relief of declaration
and injunction. Admittedly, the relief of declaration was
not granted, but the injunction was granted in respect of
the property bearing Sy No.101/1A 4P, measuring 20 X
36+49/2, with the boundaries described in the schedule.
9. It is the specific case of the defendant is that he
had filed a suit in OS No.162/1992 and obtained a
judgment and decree against Lakshmamma, Dyammavva
and Duggamma, for declaration of title and for permanent
injunction in respect to, 2 ¾ guntas of land in
Sy.No.101/2A declaring him the owner. Both the trial
Court as well as Appellate Court taken note of the fact that
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
HC-KAR
the boundary which has been described in the schedule in
the original suit and also the claim made by the defendant
are different property and the same is also taken note of
by the trial Court while considering. The material on record
from paragraph Nos.13 to 16 and so also the appellate
Court in its judgment in paragraph Nos.17 and 18
concluded that the claim made by the defendant
/appellant is in respect of different property and not in
respect of the property which the plaintiff has claimed.
However, comes to the conclusion that both the properties
are adjacent to each other and when such property is
identified and also granted the relief of permanent
injunction in respect of the schedule which the plaintiff
claimed and also the contention of the defendant is also in
respect of the different survey number and different
schedule and when such being the case the very
contention of the counsel cannot be accepted.
10. However, the learned counsel for the appellant
has relied upon the decision in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
HC-KAR
Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others, contending
that when title is in dispute, a relief of injunction ought not
to have been granted. Having considered the principles
laid down in the judgment particularly in paragraph Nos.14
to 16 of the judgment of Anantula Sudhakar's case is
concerned and it is very specifically observed by the Apex
Court that when there is a dispute with regard to the title
is concerned and cloud on the title and then judgment of
Anantula Sudhakar's will come into play. But in the case
on hand, the properties are different and claim made by
the appellant is also different and his survey number is
different. When such being the case, I do not find any
ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial
question of law and there is no any perversity in the
finding of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court and hence no substantial question of law arises for
consideration.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:44972
HC-KAR
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ASN
