Karnataka High Court
Sri. Durgadarajegowda vs Smt. Surekha on 9 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39870
RSA No. 1021 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DURGADA RAJEGOWDA,
S/O HAMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
R/O HALEPETE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SMT. SUREKHA,
Location: HIGH W/O H.K. BHADRAIAH,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
KARNATAKA R/O HALEPETE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. A.N. RAMESHACHAR,
S/O NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. A.N. SOMASHEKARACHAR,
S/O NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39870
RSA No. 1021 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. A.N. NARASIMHACHAR,
S/O NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
R/O ANATHAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANTHAHALLI POST,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGALHOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.
5. H.N. KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O H.M.SIDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O HALEPETE,
HULIYURDURGA,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.264/2015 ON THE FILE
OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39870
RSA No. 1021 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant in respect of 'A'
and 'B' schedule properties. No doubt, the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court have dismissed the suit. Now, the learned
counsel for the appellant restricts his claim only in respect of 'A'
schedule property and the same is mentioned in paragraph
No.7 of the appeal memo that the appellant has restricted his
claim in respect of 'A' schedule property only.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that they are not disputing the sale made by them in
favour of the appellant to the extent of 4 guntas of land, which
is morefully described in schedule 'A' and also contend that in
the written statement itself categorically stated the same.
3. In reply to this argument, the learned counsel for
the appellant would submit that both the Courts committed an
error in not considering the admission on the part of the
respondents, wherein they have categorically stated that they
are not disputing the sale made by them and they are not
NC: 2025:KHC:39870
HC-KAR
claiming any right in respect of 'A' schedule property is
concerned.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondents and considering
the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, the matter requires
admission and frame the substantial question of law:
"Whether both the Courts have committed an
error in dismissing the suit in respect of item No.1
i.e., 'A' schedule property without considering the
admission on the part of the respondents?"
5. This Court also secured both the Court records and
perused the same. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and also
considering the factual aspects of the case, the claim made by
the plaintiff in O.S.No.264/2015 is in respect of 'A' and 'B'
schedule properties. In respect of 'A' schedule property, relief
is sought in respect of Sy.No.166/4 measuring 99 x 44 feet and
now the appellant has restricted the claim only in respect of 'A'
schedule property and not made any claim in respect of 'B'
NC: 2025:KHC:39870
HC-KAR
schedule property though made schedule 'B' property in the
original suit.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
contend that in the written statement they have categorically
stated that with regard to 'A' schedule property is concerned,
they are not claiming any right, since they have admitted the
sale deed executed by them in favour of the appellant in
respect of 'A' schedule property to the extent of 4 guntas of the
property. When such being the case and when there is a
specific admission in the written statement, which is brought to
the notice of this Court by the respondents that they are not
claiming any right in respect of Sy.No.166/4 measuring 4
guntas of land, both the Courts have committed an error in
dismissing the suit in its entirety and ought to have considered
the claim of the plaintiff in respect of 'A' schedule property,
which is not disputed.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents also
reiterated the same that they are not making any claim in
respect of 4 guntas of land, which is shown in the schedule as
'A' schedule property and hence the substantial question of law
NC: 2025:KHC:39870
HC-KAR
framed by this Court is answered in the affirmative that both
the Courts have committed an error in not granting the relief as
sought in respect of Sy.No.166/4, which is not disputed by the
defendants and committed an error in totally rejecting the
claim of the plaintiff and hence it requires modification of the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court for granting the
relief in respect of 'A' schedule property to the extent of 4
guntas of land.
8. The other relief sought by the plaintiff for
mandatory injunction in respect of 'B' schedule property is not
granted, though it is pleaded that the same is part and parcel
of 'A' schedule property and the same does not arise and 'B'
schedule property is distinct from 'A' schedule property and
hence the relief of mandatory injunction as sought in respect of
'B' schedule property is not granted. The appellant in this
second appeal restricted prayer in respect of 'A' schedule
property only.
9. With these observations, the second appeal is
allowed. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in respect
of 'A' schedule property only to the extent of 4 guntas of land
NC: 2025:KHC:39870
HC-KAR
as claimed in the suit in view of decreetal of suit based on
admissions.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
