Second appeal filed by unsuccessful defendant against judgment decreeing right to access a disputed road. High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, upholding findings that the road exists and defendant failed to prove ownership.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1399 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
C S SATHISH RAO S/O SINGAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NEAR SHANISHWARE TEMPLE MALLESWARA ROAD, KADUR TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O SIDDAPPA @ SIDDAPPA SHETTY @ SINGATEGERE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O SOUTHERN PART OF UNDER BRIDGE ROAD, VENKATESHWARA NAGARA, KADUR TOWN & POST, KADUR TALUK-577548
NC: 2023:KHC:41622 RSA No. 1399 of 2016
KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.K.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; R3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2016 PASSED IN RA NO. 14/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, KADUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.2.2013 PASSED IN OS NO. 207/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC KADUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is by unsuccessful defendant No.1 who has questioned the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein plaintiffs suit seeking
relief of injunction simpliciter is decreed by both the Courts and defendant No.1 is restrained from obstructing plaintiffs right to have access to road through eastern side.
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
contending that suit road is part and parcel of U.B. Road and the said road is situated on the eastern side of the property owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that on western side of first plaintiff's house and on the eastern side of the site owned by the plaintiff No.2, the suit road is in existence for more than 30 years. The plaintiffs grievance is that defendant No.1 has got created sale deed in his favour which is situated within the jurisdiction of Tangali Grama Panchayat and does not come within the jurisdiction of TMC, Kadur and under the garb of the sale deed, defendant No.1 now intends to put up construction over the suit schedule road and block the same and therefore, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs.
their respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence.
in earlier bare suit for injunction filed by defendant in
O.S.No.207/2004 held that defendants claim over suit
road is rightly negatived in the earlier suit bearing O.S.No.207/2004. The trial Court found that the present suit road was subject matter of the earlier suit and the trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that defendant has failed to substantiate that he owns a plot within the boundaries indicated in the plaint in the earlier
suit. The trial Court while examining as to whether plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating their claim, has taken note of Ex.P-12, which is Kadur Town Plan sketch and has also taken note of photographs produced at Exs.P-13 to P-15. The trial Court has also examined the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are also the owners of sites adjoining to the suit road. Referring to these evidence let in by plaintiffs coupled with the judgment rendered in O.S.No.207/2004, trial Court held that plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating the existence of suit road. While negativing the claim of defendant, trial Court also held that defendant having suffered a decree in earlier round of litigation cannot lay a claim over the suit road.
NC: 2023:KHC:41622 RSA No. 1399 of 2016
On these set of reasonings, trial Court proceeded to decree the suit.
that boundaries indicated in defendant sale deed do not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the written statement. It is on these set of reasonings, appellate Court having concurred with the reasons and conclusions recorded by the trial Court was not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge.
chosen to question the decree insofar as counter claim is concerned. The sketch and photographs produced by plaintiffs coupled with evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are the owners of the adjoining plots clearly establishe the existence of suit road. The rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant does not come to his aid. Both the Courts taking cognizance of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.207/2004 were not inclined to accede to the claim made by the defendant over the suit road. Both the Courts have concurrently held that suit for injunction filed by the defendant in earlier round of litigation was infact in respect of the very suit road. In the said suit, the Court has recorded a categorical finding that defendant has failed to substantiate the existence of the property as indicated in the schedule. The significance of these findings/legal tenet will not only impact upon the litigants involved in the antecedent litigation but extends its authoritative reach to encompass their successors-ininterest. The solemnity and gravity of a Court's pronouncement imbue it with a character of irrefutable
evidentiary value, rendering it binding upon the parties and their progeny in subsequent legal contests. The Courts, as custodians of justice, are entrusted with the duty to safeguard the sanctity of prior adjudications, fostering a legal landscape characterized by coherence and consistency. This obligation serves not merely as a legal formality but as an indispensable mechanism to fortify the edifice of justice, wherein the echoes of past pronouncements resonate with authoritative import, guiding the trajectory of legal deliberations. If defendant has suffered a decree in earlier round of litigation and his
counter claim is rejected in the present suit, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts indicating existence of suit road do not suffer from any serious infirmities.
NC: 2023:KHC:41622 RSA No. 1399 of 2016
The pending interlocutory application, if any, does
not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts establishing the existence of a public road and negating the defendant's claim deserve to be disturbed in the second appeal.
Whether a finding recorded in an earlier suit regarding the same road binds the parties and their successors in interest in subsequent litigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
O.S.No.207/2004Referred¶51
CS SATHISH RAO
S S MANJUNATH
H G CHANDRAPPA
THE CHIEF OFFICER KADUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
