Karnataka High Court
Hejibai W/O Bhala Naik vs Dharmanna S/O Linganna Rathod on 28 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
RSA No. 200029 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200029 OF 2014 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
HEJIBAI W/O BHILA NAIK,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BAILAPUR THANDA,
TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DHARMANNA S/O LINGANNA RATHOD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA R/O BAILAPUR TANDA,
Location: HIGH TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIR-585201.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 12.11.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT SHORAPUR, IN R.A.NO.12/2013, AND
CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2013
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AT SHORAPUR, IN
O.S.NO.121/2008.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
RSA No. 200029 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 27.10.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff, who is
aggrieved by reversal of judgment and decree rendered by
the Trial Court and dismissal of the suit by the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.12/2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
4. The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.
No.121/2008 seeking a decree of permanent injunction
simpliciter against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to
be the absolute owner and in lawful possession of land
bearing Sy.No.99/E, measuring 6 acres 3 guntas, situated
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
at Channur village, Shorapur Taluk. It was her specific
case that she had alienated an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas
situated towards the northern portion of her holding in
favour of one Lingaraj through a registered sale deed and
had retained the remaining extent of 2 acres 23 guntas
towards the southern side. The defendant, being the
adjoining owner of land bearing Sy.No.99/Aa, measuring 6
acres 2 guntas, allegedly started interfering with her
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the retained
portion. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute
the present suit seeking protection of her possession,
producing along with the plaint a sketch/map indicating
the relative location of her and the defendant's properties.
5. The defendant, upon service of summons,
entered appearance and filed a written statement,
categorically denying the averments made in the plaint.
He disputed the identity and extent of the suit property
and alleged that the plaintiff had not approached the Court
with clean hands. It was contended that the boundaries
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
furnished by the plaintiff were incorrect and that she was
not the owner of 6 acres 3 guntas, as claimed. On the
basis of the rival pleadings, the parties were relegated to
trial to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of
their respective claims.
6. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the
evidence on record, answered Issue No.1 in the
affirmative, holding that the plaintiff had successfully
proved her lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. Issue No.2 relating to alleged interference was
also answered in the affirmative, and consequently, the
Trial Court decreed the suit restraining the defendant from
interfering with the plaintiff's possession.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
defendant preferred an appeal in R.A. No.12/2013. The
First Appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the oral and
documentary evidence, found that certain admissions
elicited from the plaintiff during cross-examination
indicated that she was not in possession of the suit
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
property as on the date of filing of the suit. Relying upon
these admissions, the Appellate Court reversed the
findings of the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the
plaintiff's suit.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant,
reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of
appeal, vehemently contended that the alleged admissions
extracted in cross-examination cannot be read in isolation
or treated as fatal to the plaintiff's case. It is argued that
the examination-in-chief of the defendant himself contains
material admissions acknowledging the plaintiff's
possession, and such admissions ought to prevail over
stray statements elicited in cross-examination. Counsel
further submitted that the revenue records and the
registered sale deed produced by the plaintiff clearly
establish that, after selling 3 acres 20 guntas, she
continued to hold 2 acres 23 guntas situated on the
southern side beyond the East-West Nala, thereby
demonstrating continuous possession. It is therefore
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
contended that the reversal of the decree by the First
Appellate Court is perverse and unsustainable in law.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
defendant-respondent supported the findings and reasons
recorded by the First Appellate Court. He contended that
the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the
plaintiff go to the root of the matter, and once it is
established that the plaintiff was not in possession of the
suit property as on the date of the suit, the very
foundation of an injunction suit collapses. Hence, the
dismissal of the suit by the Appellate Court, according to
him, warrants no interference.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
both sides at length and on perusal of the pleadings, oral
evidence, and documentary materials placed on record,
this Court proceeds to examine whether the findings of the
First Appellate Court call for interference in second appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
11. This Court, by order dated 16.01.2021, has
admitted the second appeal on the following substantial
questions of law:
"1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified
in reversing the judgment and decree of
the trial Court?
2. Whether the First Appellate Court is
justified in holding that plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit property as on the
date of filing of the suit?"
Findings on both substantial question of laws:
12. The plaintiff, at the time of instituting the suit,
has furnished a sketch/map depicting the relative location
and extent of the properties held by both the plaintiff and
the defendant. A perusal of the said sketch reveals that
the lands of the plaintiff and the defendant are contiguous
and of similar extents, situated adjoining each other. The
sketch further discloses that both properties lie on either
side of a Nala running East-West, which forms a natural
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
demarcating feature between the northern and southern
portions of their respective holdings.
13. On examining the sketch, it is evident that on
the northern side of the Nala, both parties originally held
lands of approximately equal extent while the defendant's
northern portion measured 3 acres 22 guntas, the
plaintiff's northern portion measured 3 acres 20 guntas.
The plaintiff has categorically asserted that she sold this
northern portion of 3 acres 20 guntas to one Lingaraj
through a registered sale deed.
14. The present dispute, therefore, is confined only
to the southern portion of Sy.No.99/E, wherein the plaintiff
claims to have retained an extent of 2 acres 23 guntas,
while the defendant's retained land in Sy.No.99/Aa on the
western side measures 2 acres 20 guntas, as delineated in
the plaintiff's sketch.
15. Although the defendant, in his written
statement, has formally denied the correctness of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
sketch furnished by the plaintiff, such denial remains bald
and unsupported by any counter-sketch or substantive
documentary evidence. The defendant has neither
produced a map from any competent authority nor
furnished any material particulars to dispute the
boundaries or relative positioning shown in the plaintiff's
sketch.
16. In the absence of such evidence, this Court
finds that the plaintiff's delineation of the property remains
uncontroverted. The defendant's mere allegation that the
sketch is incorrect cannot, in law, displace the plaintiff's
consistent and supported version. Consequently, under the
general rule embodied in Section 114, Illustration (g) of
the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference necessarily
arises against the defendant for his failure to produce the
best available evidence namely, a counter-sketch or land
records that could have disproved the plaintiff's version.
17. On the contrary, the plaintiff has produced
reliable documentary evidence, including the registered
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
sale deed, which not only establishes the fact of alienation
of a portion of her land towards the northern side but also
demonstrates her continued ownership and retention of
the remaining 2 acres 23 guntas on the southern side of
the Nala. The recitals in the sale deed themselves
recognize the residual holding of the plaintiff, thereby
corroborating her version. Thus, the plaintiff has
satisfactorily shown, through primary documentary
evidence, that she did not part with her entire holding, and
her title and possession over the retained extent remain
intact.
18. The revenue records, produced and marked as
Exhibits P-2 to P-8 and P-9 to P-16, further fortify the
plaintiff's case. These documents consistently record the
plaintiff's ownership over Sy.No.99/E, measuring 6 acres 3
guntas in total. Even after the sale of a portion in favour of
Lingaraj, the mutation entries and record-of-rights
extracts continue to reflect the plaintiff's name in respect
of the retained 2 acres 23 guntas.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
19. The defendant has not produced any contra
revenue records to demonstrate that the plaintiff has
divested herself of her entire extent or that the remaining
portion has merged with the defendant's holding. Except
for a vague denial in the written statement, there is no
substantive challenge to the plaintiff's title. In the absence
of any rival documentary evidence, the revenue entries
produced by the plaintiff carry presumptive value of
correctness under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act and must, therefore, be given due
evidentiary weight.
20. The core controversy, however, centers around
the alleged admissions attributed to the plaintiff during her
cross-examination by the defendant's counsel and the
voluntary admissions made by the defendant himself in his
examination-in-chief while deposing in support of his
defence. The First Appellate Court, while reversing the
well-reasoned decree of the Trial Court, has relied solely
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
upon isolated portions of the plaintiff's cross-examination,
construing them as admissions adverse to her possession.
21. This Court finds that such an approach, without
a holistic reading of the deposition, may not be legally
sound. The principle is well-settled that a statement in
cross-examination must be read in conjunction with the
examination-in-chief and surrounding evidence to
ascertain its true import. The First Appellate Court,
however, appears to have placed undue emphasis on
selective excerpts, disregarding both the context and the
corroborative oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the plaintiff.
22. Therefore, before examining whether the
findings of the First Appellate Court are sustainable, this
Court deems it appropriate to extract the precise portions
of the plaintiff's cross-examination relied upon by the
Appellate Court as admissions forming the basis for
reversal of the decree.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
"ಪ ಾ ನಮ ಜ ೕ ನ ಒತು ವ ಾಡು ಾ ೆ ಎಂದು
ಊ ನ ಪಂ!ಾಯ ಾ# ೆ ೕ ೆ. ಈಗಲೂ ಸಹ ನಮ ಮತು
ಪ ಾ ಯರ ಜ ೕ ನ ಮಧ, 2 ¦üÃl JvÀÛgz
À À §AqÀÄ EzÉ. ¸Àzj
À
zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄ ¥Àwæ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä -ೊಲದ ಒತು ವ ಾ# .ಾಗುವ/
ಾಡುವದ0ೆ1 ಬಂ ದ 0ೆ1 ಾ ೆ ಾ# ೆ ೕ ೆ. ಪ ಾ ನಮ
ಸಂಪ3ಣ5 ಜ ೕನನು6 ಒತು ವ ಾ#0ೊಂ# ಾ ೆ. ಈ ಾ ೆ
ºÀÆqÀĪÀ ಮುಂ!ೆ ನಮ ಮತು ಪ ಾ ಯರ ಮಧ, ಪಂ!ಾ7
ಆ9ತು ಮತು ಅದಕೂ1 ಮುಂ< ಪ ಾ ಒತು ವ ಾಡಲು ಪ ಯತ6
ಮಡು=ಾ 7 ಾ ಸದ ಪ ಾ ಒತು ವ ಾ# ಎರಡು ಮೂರು
ನದ ನಂತರ ಸದ zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÉÝêÉ."
23. The defendant's stand in examination-in-chief
at paragraph No.4 is also crucial. Therefore, the same also
needs to be extracted. Accordingly, the same is extracted
which reads as under:
"It is denied that the defendant (deponent) is
trying to encroach upon the land of the plaintiff by
demolishing bund. Neither the deponent has
encroached any portion of land Sy.No.99/E nor he is
trying to do so. In fact one Chandarshekar look after
the agricultural affairs of the land Sy.No.99/Aa
belonging to the deponent and I never tried to
encroach upon any portion of the land Sur.No.99/E
as alleged by the plaintiff."
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
24. The defendant's statement in his examination-
in-chief that "he has not encroached" is not merely a self-
serving denial and but an unequivocal an "admission"
within the meaning of Sections 17 to 23 of the Evidence
Act. An "admission," in law, is a statement suggesting an
inference as to a fact in issue and ordinarily operates
against the maker's own interest. It derives its probative
force not from the statement itself but from its consistency
with the surrounding circumstances and the likelihood of
its truth as weighed on the preponderance of probabilities.
A self-exculpatory assertion such as "I have not
encroached" therefore, enjoy the evidentiary weight that
the statute accords to admissions.
25. Under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence
Act, the burden of proving encroachment lies upon the
defendant, especially when the fact lies within his special
knowledge under Section 106. The defendant, however,
has failed to discharge this burden by withholding the very
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
evidence that could have conclusively supported his plea
namely, a measurement sketch, commission report, or
revenue extracts. In such circumstances, the rule of
adverse inference once again operates against him under
Section 114, Illustration (g).
26. On the other hand, the alleged admissions
elicited from the plaintiff during cross-examination, which
the First Appellate Court has relied upon, cannot be
viewed in isolation or torn out of context. The settled
position in law is that evidentiary admissions are not
conclusive proof of the facts admitted (Section 31) and
must be read as a whole, along with the examination-in-
chief and documentary record. A stray, ambiguous, or
partially extracted answer particularly in relation to mixed
questions of possession, extent, or boundary cannot
outweigh cogent documentary evidence and consistent
boundaries.
27. When the plaintiff's title documents, revenue
entries, and delineation sketch all point to continued
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
possession over the southern retained portion, the
preponderance of probabilities heavily tilts in her favour.
The plaintiff's version is consistent, corroborated, and
supported by material evidence, whereas the defendant's
case rests only on oral denials devoid of corroboration.
Therefore, the Appellate Court's reversal, premised solely
on isolated admissions while ignoring the cumulative
documentary evidence and the principle of preponderant
probability, cannot be sustained in law.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the substantial questions of
law Nos. 1 and 2 deserve to be answered in the negative.
The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on
proper appreciation of evidence, whereas the First
Appellate Court has misdirected itself by giving undue
weight to a few stray answers in cross-examination and
overlooking the broader evidentiary balance. The plaintiff
has successfully demonstrated her ownership and lawful
possession through revenue records, title deeds, and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
delineation of boundaries. Applying the theory of
preponderance of probabilities, the evidence on record
unmistakably points to the plaintiff's continued possession
over the suit property and the defendant's interference
therein. In civil disputes, the Court's task is to determine
which party's version is more probable, not which one is
proved beyond reasonable doubt. On this comparative
scale, the plaintiff's case fortified by documentary
evidence and corroborated by consistent boundary
descriptions clearly outweighs the defendant's
unsubstantiated denials. The so-called admissions
attributed to the plaintiff in cross-examination are neither
clear nor unequivocal on any material fact and, therefore,
not fatal to her case.
29. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this
Court passes the following:
ORDER
i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby allowed.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6356
HC-KAR
ii) The judgment and decree dated 12.11.2013
passed in R.A. No.12/2013 by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Shorapur, is set aside.
iii) Consequently, the judgment and decree dated
27.02.2013 passed in O.S. No.121/2008 by the
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shorapur, is
restored and affirmed.
iv) In the result, the plaintiff is held to be in lawful
possession of the suit schedule property and
the injunction granted by the Trial Court
restraining the defendant from interfering with
her possession stands confirmed.
v) All pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:SI
