Karnataka High Court
Smt. N S Sarojamma vs Sri Chikkappa on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
RSA No. 849 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT.N.S SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/O SRI.L.M.CHANDRAPPA,
R/AT:LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577527.
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER,
SRI.L.M.CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O ALTE MAHADEVAPPA
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD E, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRI CHIKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O MANTENAHALLY CHIKKAPPA,
2. SRI OMKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O MANTENAHALLY CHIKKAPPA,
3. SRI THIPPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
RSA No. 849 of 2019
HC-KAR
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 & 3
ARE RESIDING AT
GUTTIKATTE GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:577 527.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-3 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 17.11.2018 PASSED IN
RA.NO.73/2016[OLD NO.25/2013], ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSADURGA, ALLOWING,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED:07.02.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.81/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
HOSADURGA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the
absolute and lawful owner in possession of land bearing
Sy.No.91/1A4 measuring 4 acres situated at Madhure
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk (for brevity, "the
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
HC-KAR
suit schedule property"). Since defendants interfered with
peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, the
plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.81/2008 seeking a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
3. The defendants, by denying the plaint averments,
also filed counter claim seeking a declaration of
easementary rights over the alleged "ABCD" road portion
which was alleged to be in the northern portion of the suit
schedule property.
4. On appreciation of pleadings, evidence and
documents, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff
and dismissed the counter claim.
5. On appeal by the defendants only against the
judgment and decree of permanent injunction, the First
Appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
HC-KAR
judgment and decree of the Trial Court in respect of
permanent injunction.
6. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiff is before this Court.
7. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the
following substantial questions of law:
"1) Whether the first appellate Court is
justified in reversing the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court, when the trial Court
has specifically declined and rejected the counter
claim of the defendant with regard to the road
purportedly existed on the northern side of the
property of the plaintiff and said finding and
decree of the trial Court has remained un-
challenged ?
2) Whether the first appellate Court is
justified in reversing the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court to the extent of entire
suit schedule property even when the counter
claim of the defendant was only in respect of his
purported rights to use the road which relief was
rejected by the trial Court ?"
8. It may be pertinent to state here that though the
counter claim of the defendants which was with regard to
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
HC-KAR
declaration of easementary right over the road i.e., ABCD
road purportedly existed on the northern side of the suit
schedule property of the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial
Court, the same was not challenged by the defendants.
Thus, the finding with regard to rejection of counter claim
has attained finality.
9. The First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court only on the ground that there
was suppression of material fact with regard to alleged
road in existence of the suit schedule property and also on
the ground that the Trial Court has not property
considered the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in its entirety.
10. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 i.e., the husband of the
plaintiff and the neighbour reveals that they had no where
admitted that there was a road in the suit schedule
property which was used by the defendants to ingress or
egress to their respective property. In addition, the
evidence of PW.3 - Village Account clearly depicts that he
had visited the suit schedule property and that there was
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
HC-KAR
no road existed in the suit property and even as per the
survey sketch/village map, there was no road existed in
the suit schedule property. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1
to 3 supports the case of the plaintiff and accordingly, the
Trial Court has rightly rejected the counter claim.
11. On perusal of the evidence of plaintiff and the
defendants, it is seen that the defendants had not
seriously disputed the possession and title of the plaintiff
over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, as
held by the Trial Court, as per the village map and the
sketch issued by the Survey Department pertaining to
Madhure village, there was a road in existence from
Lakkenahalli in the beginning through Sy.Nos.91 and 95,
however, no road was shown in the suit schedule property
i.e., Sy.No.91/1A4. As such, it is clear that there was no
road in existence which was used by the defendants to
ingress and egress to their property. Thus, the plaintiff,
having proved the title and possession of the suit property
and having proved the interference by the defendants who
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
HC-KAR
claimed existence of 'ABCD cart road', is entitled for a
decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. As
such, the First Appellate Court has not appreciated the
evidence on record in proper perspective and has erred in
passing the impugned judgment and decree, when the
findings of the Trial Court in respect of rejection of counter
claim has not been challenged by the defendants.
Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered
in the "negative". Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The second appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment and decree dated
17.11.2018 passed by the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.73/2016 is
set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:43745
HC-KAR
iii) The judgment and decree dated
07.02.2013 passed by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.81/2008 is affirmed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SSD/PKS
