Shantaram S/O Narayan Hegde, Vs Parameshwar

RAMACHANDRA S/O. NARAYAN BHAGWAT, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SERVICE, R/O: KARKI GRAM PAIKI, KELAGINKERI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, NOW RESIDING AT BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, NARAYAN S/O. RAMACHANDRA BHAGWAT,

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SERVICE, R/O: KARKI GRAM PAIKI, KELAGINKERI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶24

GOVIND S/O. NARAYAN JOSHI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SERVICE, R/O: KARKI GRAM PAIKI, KELAGINKERI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, AT PRESENT OCC: MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, GADGAERE, TQ: HOONSUR VIA K R NAGAR, MYSURU – 571 610.

¶25

MAHABALESHWAR S/O. NARAYAN JOSHI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SERVICE, R/O: KARKI GRAM PAIKI, KELAGINIKERI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.77, "AMBUJA NIVAS", SIDDESHWAR BADAVANE, RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR, IBRAHIM PURA, VIJAYAPURA – 586 104.

¶26

JAYA GAJANAN SHARMA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: KODSAR, POST: KHANDIKA, SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGOA.

¶27

LAKSHMI GAJANAN JOSHI, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: PLOT NO.2, VISHWA BUILDING, UDYAN NAGAR, PIMPRI, POONA.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI GANAPATHI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO B), R5 ,R6; NOTICE TO R3 & R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.03.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HONNAVAR IN R.A.NO.48/2012, INSOFAR AS SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2012 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, HONNAVAR IN O.S.NO.52/2006, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

¶37

This appeal is filed by defendant No.1, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2016 passed in R.A. No.48/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Honnavar (for short, “the First Appellate Court”), whereby the First Appellate Court, while allowing the said appeal filed by the plaintiffs had set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2012 passed in O.S. No.52/2006 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Honnavar (for short, “the trial Court”) and has granted permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 by from trespassing into the pathway, from removing the gates situated at points “A” and “B”, and from damaging the pagar situated on both sides of the suit property.

¶38

After hearing the parties, by order dated 10.07.2025, this Court appointed Shri C.S. Shettar, learned Advocate as a Commissioner to inspect the disputed suit property and to submit a report specifically with regard to

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the defendant has any alternate way, passage, or pathway to access his property.

¶42

In pursuance thereof, the Commissioner has submitted his report consisting of four pages, along with a rough sketch and mahazar drawn in the presence of the parties to the suit and their respective counsel. The Commissioner has opined that there is no alternate way for the defendant to approach his house except the pathway shown in letters “ABCD” running through the gate Nos.I and II.

¶43

The matter was admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law:

¶44

“Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by holding that the appellant/defendant No.1 has got alternate road to reach his house despite the plaintiff not producing any evidence in this regard?”

¶45

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Sabeel Ahmed, and learned counsel for respondents, Shri Ganapathi M.Bhat, submitted that the parties may be permitted to explore the possibility

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

of an amicable settlement in the matter. Accordingly, the

¶50

matter was listed for hearing today.

¶51

Today, a joint memo has been filed, duly signed by the appellant / defendant No.1, Shantaram S/o. Narayan Hegde, and respondent No.2 / plaintiff No.2, Ramachandra S/o. Narayan Bhagwat. For the better understanding of the terms of settlement between the parties, a copy of the sketch prepared by the Commissioner appointed by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 has also been made part of the said joint memo.

¶52

The joint memo reads as follows:

¶53

“1. That during the pendency of the above R.S.A, the parties have resolved the matter amicably and have agreed to settle all disputes regarding the usage of the pathway that is the subject matter of the suit

¶54

2. It is further submitted that, the path way is defined as mentioned wherein the said pathway starts from Kelgenkeri Road with 8 feet 8 inches and goes up to 43 feet and then Gate No.1 is located after that Gate No.2 is located 56 feet from Gate No.1 after the Gate No.2 (which measures 6 feet 3 inches) and the path constrained to 4 feet 2 inches which has length of 46 feet 4 Inches from the house of Respondent No.2 house and house and land of appellant herein and the said measurements and pathway is as mentioned in the commissioner report dated 15-07-2025 appointed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

3. The contesting Respondent No.2 have agreed to permit the appellants and his family members, visitors, tenants to use the existing pathway running from the public road (Kelaginkeri Oni) to his property bearing Sy. No. 320/1 and Sy. No. 564/5 and further the parties herein undertake that at no further point of time they will expand and alter with respect to the above mentioned extent of pathway, for the purpose of pedestrian and two-wheeler access.

¶59

4. The Appellants have further agreed to manage the existing gates situated at the entry and exit points of the said pathway, so as to facilitate free and peaceful access to appellants and his family members.

¶60

5. In view of mutual convenience and future maintenance, it is agreed between the parties that the gates shall be maintained and the same shall be used jointly by both parties.

¶61

6. The parties undertake to maintain the said gates and the pathway jointly and cooperatively, without causing obstruction to each other, and shall bear the maintenance expenses equally. it is further clarified by both the parties that, they will have one lock attached to the gate No.2 and will possesses 2 keys respectively to open the said lock.

¶62

7. Both parties agree that henceforth, no obstruction shall be caused by either party to the peaceful use of the said pathway, and all claims, counter-claims, and objections concerning the right of way between the Appellants and Respondent No.1 stand settled.

¶63

8. The parties further submit that they have entered into this settlement voluntarily and without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence.

¶64

9. The parties respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record this joint memo and dispose of the R.S.A accordingly, as settled. The copy of the sketch drawn by the Court Commissioner dated 15/7/25 is made as part of this memo.”

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

8. The sketch enclosed to the aforesaid joint memo

¶68

is scanned and extracted below:

¶69

Thus, essentially, as per the aforesaid understanding, the plaintiffs have agreed to permit

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

defendant No.1, his family members, tenants, or any one claiming through or under them, to utilise the pathway marked and delineated by letters “ABCD” marked in the sketch, passing through Gate Nos.I and II, as access to his property.

¶73

It is also mutually agreed by both the plaintiffs as well as defendant that gate Nos.I and II, as shown in the pathway, shall be jointly maintained by them and that neither party shall cause any obstruction to use of the said pathway by the other at any point in future.

¶74

The parties are present before the Court. This Court has interacted with them personally. Defendant No.1 is accompanied by his son, Shri Narayan K.S. The parties have expressed their clear understanding of and satisfaction with the terms of the settlement. The settlement being in accordance with law, and the joint memo is taken on record.

¶75

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint memo.

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8897 RSA No. 100252 of 2016

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

13. The Registry to draw decree accordingly.

¶80

This Court places on record its appreciation for the efforts made by Shri Sabeel Ahmed, Shri Ganapati M.Bhat, Shri Sourabh Hegde and Shri C.S. Shettar, learned counsel for the parties and the Commissioner respectively, in parties in arriving at an amicable settlement in the

¶81

matter.

¶82

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶83

VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Shantaram S/O Narayan Hegde, v. Parameshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

Shantaram S/O Narayan Hegde, v. Parameshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Dawalsab Vs Smt. Bibjan

Smt.Bibijan W/O Dawalsab Daleel, Vs Dawalsab S/O Husensab Daleel

Shri. Babu S/O Satagouda Patil Vs the State

Sri Uligai Hanumanthappa S.O. Hauligai Kariyappa Vs Smt Garapati Panduranga Mohan Kumar S.O. Late G. Venkaiah

Fakkirayya S/O Siddayya Puranikmath, Vs Rudrayya S/O Shivanandayya Puranikmath

Sri Krisnachand Thaku S/O Indrachand Thakur Vs Smt Deepika Kumari Sing