In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Karnataka refused to frame any substantial question of law. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the lower courts ignored any substantial question of law, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of merits.
Appeal dismissed; Interim application paused as appeal is dismissed.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1885 OF 2012 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. NANJAPPA, S/O LATE BASAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT: BEEJUVALLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
THE SECRETARY, HALE MUDIGERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUDIGERE TOWN AND POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132.
…RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21ST JUNE, 2012 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.73 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKKAMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18TH APRIL, 2009 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.57 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MUDIGERE.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard, Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice, accordingly, notice is held sufficient.
defendant-Gram Panchayat for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property measuring to an extent of 03 acre 04 guntas including 03 guntas of phoot kharab, cultivated with coffee bounded on the boundaries as described in the schedule in Survey No.1/2P2. It is the case of plaintiff that, he is the absolute lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired the same by registered partition deed dated 03rd May, 1993.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
who are illdisposed and inimical towards the plaintiff and thereby they want to dispossess the plaintiff and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
No.1/2P to the said land. The defendant is passing on the land of one Murugesh and that the plaintiff is obstructing the defendant and his men on the pretext that the land of Murugesh also belongs to him.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
the following issues for consideration:
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?"
property which he is allegedly holding in possession including 24 guntas of the gramathana land within the suit schedule property, which is admitted in the cross-examination to be belonging to defendant. The plaintiff has misrepresented the facts and has not come before the Court with clean hands. It is also held that the description of the suit schedule property is not truthful one and there is no proper boundaries provided to identify the land of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Trial Court negatived the contentions of the plaintiff and issue Nos.1 to 3 was held in negative and suit came to be dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
2. What order?"
perusal of Exhibits P4 and P5, it does not disclose the boundaries as shown in the schedule, so also, Exhibits P7 to P28(a), does not indicate the boundaries apart from the existence of the land. Hence, negatived the contention of the plaintiff with regard to the correctness of boundaries and identity of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. On the basis of the re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire evidence on record, the First Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the order of dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by these concurrent judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court in second appeal on the ground that the substantial question of law requires to be framed for considering the illegality and perversity of judgments of both the Courts below.
cross-examination, the same falling within the suit schedule property described in the plaint unless the plaintiff is evicted by due process of law, protection of the said land, which is in possession of the plaintiff cannot be disputed or disturbed and the same requires to be protected in accordance with law. Hence, he claims that the settled possession requires to be protected even against the true and lawful owner of the property. He further contends that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have not considered these aspects and both judgments are cryptic, vague and arbitrary, accordingly, both the judgments required to be set-aside and consequently, permanent injunction requires to be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
to the plaintiff, he has not produced boundaries or sketch to identify the suit schedule property.
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
NC: 2023:KHC:31689 RSA NO.1885 OF 2012
was not raised and neither was it required, no issue was framed as such. In view of the above discussions made, I do not find any substantial question of law to be framed for consideration in the present appeal and accordingly, appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself as the same lacks merits.
In view of the above, I pass the following:
O R D E R
SD/JUDGE
ABK/ARK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law exists to maintain the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code
Whether the lower courts committed perversity or illegality in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction due to unproven boundaries
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. B. Nanjappa
The Secretary, Hale Mudigere Grama Panchayath
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
