Karnataka High Court
Sri Mukthiyar vs Sri Abdul Khaleel on 8 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39522
RSA No. 149 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.149 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUKTHIYAR
SON OF MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM SAB
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT BASAVAPATNA VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577551
2. SRI RAHAMATHULLA
SON OF MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM SAB
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
Digitally signed RESIDING AT BASAVAPATNA VILLAGE
by DEVIKA M BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
Location: HIGH CHANNAGIRI TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577551
3. SMT. JABEENA
WIFE OF MULTHIYAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT BASAVAPATNA VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577551
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39522
RSA No. 149 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. SMT. NAZRIN
WIFE OF RAHAMATHULLA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT BASAVAPATNA VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577551
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GOPI P M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ABDUL KHALEEL
W/O LATE HOTTE RAJASAB
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT BASAVAPATNA VILLAGE
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577551
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ZAMEER PASHA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.10.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.97/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39522
RSA No. 149 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 20.10.2020 passed in R.A.No.97/2019 by the First
Appellate Court as well as the judgment and decree dated
30.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.174/2016 by the Trial Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of
declaration and injunction. The Trial Court granted the only
relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff's 2½ feet vacant space towards western side of suit
schedule property and rejected the relief of declaration in
coming to the conclusion that in the document at Ex.P4, there
is a reference of leaving of 2½ feet space for the use of
plaintiff's family members and said fact is also reveals in the
document at Ex.P3 - Mutation Register. The Trial Court also
considered the documents at Ex.P7 to P12 i.e., photographs
NC: 2025:KHC:39522
HC-KAR
and CD wherein also reveals the fact that there is a vacant
space towards western side of the suit schedule property.
4. The counsel for the appellants in his arguments
would vehemently contend that in the admission on the part of
PW1 is very clear that no such space is left out and the said
admission has not been considered by both the Courts.
5. Considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, it discloses that there is a partition deed in
terms of Ex.P4 and in Ex.P4, it is categorically mentioned that
2½ feet is left out for the usage of the family members of the
plaintiff and the same is discussed in paragraph 11 of the
judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court while re-
appreciating the question of fact and question law considered
the document at Ex.P4 also and in paragraph 12 even extracted
the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P4 and held that in Ex.P4 there
is a clear mention of 2½ feet space which has been left for the
use of the plaintiff's family and in paragraph 13, fact finding is
given by the First Appellate Court. When concurrent finding is
given by both the Courts with regard to the left out space of
NC: 2025:KHC:39522
HC-KAR
2½ feet towards western side of the suit schedule property
which is for the usage of the plaintiff's family, the arguments of
counsel for the appellants that there is no space left out
towards western side of the suit schedule property cannot be
accepted. Hence, I do not find any merits in this appeal to
admit the same for framing of substantive questions of law.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if
any, does not survive for consideration and the same
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
