Sri. Gowdra Shivamurthy vs Smt Rudramma
2026 Latest Caselaw 1156 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Gowdra Shivamurthy vs Smt Rudramma on 11 February, 2026

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                               -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:8241
                                                     RSA No. 401 of 2023


                 HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

                BETWEEN:

                        SRI GOWDRA SHIVAMURTHY
                        S/O REVANASIDDAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                        R/A ANAGODU VILLAGE
                        DAVANAGERE TALUK
                        DAVANAGERE - 577 556.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
                [BY SRI PRASANNA B R., ADVOCATE (PH)]

                AND:

                1.       SMT. RUDRAMMA
                         SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs

Digitally signed 1(a)    SRI RANGAPPA M.H.,
by ANUSHA V              S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
Location: High           AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka        1(b)    SRI T.H. RAJAPPA,
                         S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

                1(c)     SRI M.S.CHITRAPPA,
                         S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

                         ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                         ANAGODU VILLAGE,
                              -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:8241
                                          RSA No. 401 of 2023


HC-KAR



     DAVANAGERE TALUK,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 556.

2.   SRI RANGAPPA,
     S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     OCC: MOTOR WINDING WORK,
     R/A ANAGOUD VILLAGE,
     DAVANAGERE TALUK,
     DAVANAGERE - 577 556.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI RANGANATH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (a-c) (AB);
    NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2022

PASSED   IN   R.A.   No.48/2022    ON   THE   FILE   OF   THE   II

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE,

ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2022 PASSED IN OS No.217/2013

ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

DAVANAGERE.



     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                                 -3-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:8241
                                            RSA No. 401 of 2023


 HC-KAR



                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022

passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,

Davangere, in R.A.no.48/2022 and confirming judgment and

decree dated 05.04.2022 passed by Principal Civil Judge and

J.M.F.C., Davangere, in O.S.no.217/2013, this second appeal is

filed.

2. Sri Prasanna B.R., learned counsel for appellant

submitted that appeal was by plaintiff against judgment and

decree passed by first appellate Court, reversing trial court

judgment and dismissing suit. O.S.no.217/2013 filed for relief

of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction

in respect of vacant site bearing no.147, measuring 30 X 60

feet, situated at Anagodu village, Davanagere i.e. 'A' Schedule

Property and Eastern portion measuring 15 X 60 feet out of 'A'

Schedule Property was 'B' Schedule Property (hereinafter

referred to as 'Suit Property').

3. In plaint, it was stated that plaintiff was owner of

'A' Schedule Property by issuance of Hakku Patra by Anagodu

Gram Panchayat and Suit Property was part of it. It was stated,

NC: 2026:KHC:8241

HC-KAR

property of defendants was adjacent to it. It was stated, in

collusion with officials of Anagodu Gram Panchayath,

defendants had managed to get khata extract mutated in their

names in respect of 'A' Schedule Property. On same coming to

knowledge of plaintiff, he had filed complaint before Gram

Panchayat. After verification, Gram Panchayat had passed

Exhibit-P4 - Resolution holding mutation of name of defendant

no.1 in respect of 'A' Schedule Property as illegal. Thereafter on

02.10.2012, defendants encroached eastern portion of 'A'

Schedule Property. Plaintiff filed application before Anagodu

Gram Panchayat for removal of encroachment. Since no action

was taken, he filed suit.

4. After service of summons, defendants filed written

statement denying plaintiff as owner of 'A' Schedule Property

and contending that they were in possession of 'A' Schedule

Property since time immemorial, constructed a tin roofed hut

and residing in said property. They stated that to construct a

toilet, they had stored construction material in Suit Property.

But plaintiff began interfering with proposed construction and

NC: 2026:KHC:8241

HC-KAR

suit was filed without any right, title or interest over suit

property and denies encroachment.

5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following:

ISSUES

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is absolute owner in possession of suit 'A' schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have illegally encroached the suit 'B' schedule property and put upped temporary hut?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle to recover possession of suit schedule property from the defendants by way of mandatory injunction?

4) Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged acts and interference of the defendants as pleaded in the plaint?

5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable without the relief of declaration?

6) Whether the defendants prove that they are in continuous occupation of suit schedule property by constructing huts as pleaded in the written statement?

7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed?

8) What order or decree?

NC: 2026:KHC:8241

HC-KAR

6. In trial, plaintiff examined himself and two others

as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P8. In rebuttal,

defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked

Exhibits-D1 to D11.

7. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1

and 5 in affirmative, issues no.2 to 4 and 6 in negative, issue

no.7 partly in affirmative and issue no.8 by decreeing suit

granting relief of declaration but, dismissing suit insofar as

reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction.

8. Aggrieved defendants filed RA no.48/2022 on

various grounds, based on which first appellate Court framed

following:

POINTS

1) Whether the appellant establishes that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Davanagere in O.S.217/2013, dated 05.04.2022 is illegal, perverse and liable to be set-

aside?

2) What order or decree?

9. After answering point no.1 in affirmative, answered

point no.2 by allowing appeal, setting aside judgment and

NC: 2026:KHC:8241

HC-KAR

decree passed by trial Court and dismissing suit. Aggrieved

thereby, plaintiff had preferred this second appeal.

10. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that while

passing impugned judgment, first appellate Court failed to

properly appreciate documents produced by plaintiff, namely

Exhibit-P4 - Resolution of Gram Panchayat and Exhibit-P6 -

Hakku Patra. It is also contented that defendants did not place

any material to dispute title of plaintiff's property. Despite

same, well reasoned judgment passed by trial Court is

reversed. Therefore, following substantial questions of law were

proposed for consideration and prayed for answering same in

favour of appellant and allow appeal.

a. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court is perverse on the facts of the case?

b. Whether, the Lower Appellate Court erroneously appreciated the material evidence on record and finding given is perverse on the facts of the case?

NC: 2026:KHC:8241

HC-KAR

c. Whether the defendants prove that they are in continuous occupation of suit schedule property by constructing huts as pleaded in the written statement?

d. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erroneously reversed the decree granted by Trial Court that the plaintiff is the owner of suit A-

property?

11. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned

judgment and decree.

12. Though learned counsel for appellant strenuously

contended that first appellate Court did not properly appreciate

Exhibit-P4 - Resolution of Gram Panchayat and Exhibit-P6 -

Hakku Patra granted in favour of plaintiff and also failed to

notice that there was no contrary evidence led by defendants to

disprove title of plaintiff and was not justified in dismissing suit,

it is seen in suit for declaration plaintiff had sought

consequential reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction in

respect of Suit Property. Though same were rejected in suit,

NC: 2026:KHC:8241

HC-KAR

plaintiff had not filed appeal. Without consequential reliefs,

relief of bare declaration cannot sustain regardless of any error

insofar as appreciation of Exhibits-P4 and P6. Therefore, no

substantial question of law would arise for consideration. It is

settled law that in absence of substantial question of law, even

gross errors cannot be rectified in second appeal.

13. No grounds for admission of appeal under Section

100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, appeal stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36