Defendants appealed against reversal of dismissal of a permanent injunction suit concerning a house and claimed pathway. The High Court found boundary descriptions consistent across successive sale deeds, defendants showed no encroachment, held no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal without admission.
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 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1466 OF 2013 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/A HANCHIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK - 572 129.
…APPELLANTS
[BY SRI G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2024:KHC:49460 RSA No. 1466 of 2013
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 10.4.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.1.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.15/2006 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), AND JMFC, KORATAGERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 10.04.2013 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Madhugiri, in R.A.no.34/2008, this appeal is filed.
under registered sale deed dated 16.02.1965. From said date,
Beesappa was in possession. After death his death and later his son Laxmaiah, husband of plaintiff died in year 1990, she was in possession. It was stated that, she had constructed a new house in suit property about 6 years prior to suit. Since, without any manner of right, title or interest over suit property, defendants began interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession, plaintiff filed suit.
ISSUES:
herself and another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. In rebuttal, defendant no.1 and another were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and Exhibits got marked.
and 3 in negative, issue no.2 as not arising for consideration and issue no.4 by dismissing suit. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff preferred R.A.no.34/2008 on various grounds and contentions. Based on same, first appellate Court framed following points:
NC: 2024:KHC:49460 RSA No. 1466 of 2013
no change in boundary description of demised property in Exs.P.4 and P.5 - sale deeds and in Ex.P1 - sale deed except on eastern side. Thus there was illegal inclusion of 4 yards pathway left by their vendor for them to reach public road.
i) Whether first appellate Court committed an error in not noticing that as per Exs.P.4 and P.5 - sale deeds, there was no mention of 4 yards site on western side of suit property?
ii) Whether Section 34 of Specific Relief Act bars plaintiff's suit for bare injunction?
NC: 2024:KHC:49460 RSA No. 1466 of 2013
NC: 2024:KHC:49460 RSA No. 1466 of 2013
In so far as house in suit property, it observed, Ex.P.4 merely stating about house in demised property, Ex.P.5 stated dimension of house as 20 Ankanas, while in Ex.P.1 - sale deed description of house not only stated it to be of 20 Ankanas, but also stated about existence of pathway of 4 Yards on eastern and western side. It further observed, defendants did not dispute existence of pathway. It noted denial by defendants about existence of vacant space on western side of house found support in boundary description in Exs.P.4 and P.5 - sale deeds.
NC: 2024:KHC:49460 RSA No. 1466 of 2013
including 1 coconut tree, measuring East to West - 62 feet and North to South - 40 feet, etc. It observed, defendant did not dispute flow of title from Thimmarayappa to Beesappa through Hanumantharayappa and Narasamma. Their contention was that property sold was only house and not pathways.
concluded that when flow of title under Exs.P.1, P.4 and P.5 - registered sale deeds in favour of plaintiff was not disputed and possession of defendants over their property situated in Sy.no.92/9 was not disputed or disturbed, there would be no necessity for plaintiff to seek declaration of title by relying on decisions in Putlabai v. Vaijnath and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 5155; Kallappa Rama Londa v. Shivappa Nagappa Aparaj reported in AIR 1995 KAR 238 and Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy reported in 2008 (3) KCCR 1769 .
NC: 2024:KHC:49460 RSA No. 1466 of 2013
particulars in description of house situated within demised property. But, same would not prejudice defendants, when they failed to demonstrate any encroachment on their property by plaintiff. Moreover, description of property in sale deeds of plaintiff is by reference to same Khaneshumari number and by specifically stating in Ex.P.1 that house shown therein was ' newly constructed' , which as stated by PW.1 was by leaving vacant space on both eastern and western sides. When leaving of open space on western and eastern side was admitted by DW.2, first appellate Court has rightly interfered with findings of trial Court by specifically referring to boundary description in sale deeds. No substantial question of law arise for consideration.
Thus, appeal is dismissed without admission.
Consequently, pending application is also dismissed.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
Psg*/AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law arose from the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court's dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction over disputed boundary descriptions in sale de
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Putlabai v. Vaijnath and OthersReferred
ILR 2005 KAR 5155 · Who else cites this
Kallappa Rama Londa v. Shivappa Nagappa AparajReferred
AIR 1995 KAR 238 · Who else cites this
Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi ReddyReferred
2008 (3) KCCR 1769
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Eragatappa S/O Ugranna
Mallappa S/O Lingappa
Gowramma W/o Laxmaiah
Hanumantharayappa S/o Thimmarayappa
Chowdappa S/o Ramalingappa
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
