Dismissed¶64

Hanumanthappa v. Mr. P.B. Nagaraj

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025RSA/1275/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA dismissed at admission stage; no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; permanent injunction sustained despite refusal of declaration; defendant's title decree in OS No.162/1992 (Sy.No.101/2A, 2 3/4 guntas) relates to a different but adjacent property; Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy distinguished — injunction bar applies only where title disputed or clouded; concurrent findings not perverse; Davanagere trial and first appellate courts; encroachment attempt unsubstantiated.

What did the court decide?

No substantial question of law arises for consideration and there is no ground to admit the second appeal. ¶58

Hanumanthappa Vs Mr. P.B. Nagaraj — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in partly allowing the respondent's suit and the appellate Court in confirming its findings — i.e., whether that raises a substantial question of law warranting admission of the second appeal. +2 more

¶41

Court's answer

No substantial question of law arises for consideration and there is no ground to admit the second appeal.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

There is no perversity in the findings of the trial Court or the First Appellate Court.

¶58

Key takeaways

The Anathula Sudhakar principle (no injunction where there is a dispute or cloud on title) does not assist the appellant, because the property he claims and his survey number are different from the plaintiff's suit property.ratio¶58
The defendant/appellant's claim is in respect of a different property than that claimed by the plaintiff; accordingly the appellant's contention cannot be accepted.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.), 06-11-2025: Regular Second Appeal No. 1275 of 2021 (DEC/INJ) under Section 100 CPC, dismissed at admission stage. Concurrent findings upheld: the trial Court (Additional Civil Judge, Davanagere, OS No.477/2011, decree dated 01.07.2019) granted permanent injunction over Sy No.101/1A 4P measuring 20 X 36+49/2 but refused declaration; the first appellate Court (RA.No.82/2019, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, 18.02.2020) reassessed the evidence and confirmed. Held: the defendant's earlier decree in OS No.162/1992 against Lakshmamma, Dyammavva and Duggamma (2 3/4 guntas in Sy.No.101/2A) concerns a different, though adjacent, property; Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others — that injunction ought not be granted where title is disputed or clouded — was distinguished, as it applies only where there is a dispute or cloud on title, whereas here the properties and survey numbers differ; no substantial question of law arises and the concurrent findings are not perverse.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1275 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O NAGAPPA GANJI AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O 1701/5, MOTHI DODDAPPA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. T.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VEDAVATHI HOTEL, OPP CHAMUNDESHWARI THEATRE, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI.B.R.VISWANAM, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

MR. P.B. NAGARAJ S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCC: COOLI WORKER IN BAKERY R/O NITTUVALLI ROAD, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL DAVANAGERE-577002

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(V/O DTD: 24.10.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT H/S)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.82/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN OS No.477/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This matter is listed for admission. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶24

This regular second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court.

¶25

The trial Court granted the relief of permanent injunction, however, it dismissed the suit for declaration. The same was challenged by the appellant/defendant before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, having

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available

¶30

on record, framed the following points for considerations.

¶31

I. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful position and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

¶32

II. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Learned Prl.Civil Judge, Davanagere, in O.S.No.477/2011, dated 01.07.2019 is illegal, perverse and liable to be set and aside?

¶33

III. What order or decree

¶34

On reassessing both oral and documentary

¶35

evidence, the Appellate Court, in detail paragraph Nos.17 and 18, discussed that the property claimed by the defendant and also the plaintiff's property are different, but both are adjacent to each other and with regard to the encroachment attempt made by the plaintiff was not substantiated. Accordingly, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of

¶40

the trial Court and Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶41

The main contentions of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is "whether the trial Court is justified in allowing the suit partly filed by the respondent and dismissing the regular appeal by the appellate Court by confirming the findings of the fact arrived at by the trial Court at the first instance".

¶42

Learned counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly applied their minds. Accordingly, to the appellant, when the plaintiff is making an attempt to interfere with the appellant's property and the he already obtained a decree in respect

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

of his property in O.S No.162/1992 and when such being the case, the trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction.

¶47

Having heard the appellant counsel and having perused the grounds urged in the second appeal and also considering the schedule mentioned in the plaint in OS No. 477/2011, the suit was filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. Admittedly, the relief of declaration was not granted, but the injunction was granted in respect of the property bearing Sy No.101/1A 4P, measuring 20 X 36+49/2, with the boundaries described in the schedule.

¶48

It is the specific case of the defendant is that he

¶49

had filed a suit in OS No.162/1992 and obtained a judgment and decree against Lakshmamma, Dyammavva and Duggamma, for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect to, 2 ¾ guntas of land in Sy.No.101/2A declaring him the owner. Both the trial Court as well as Appellate Court taken note of the fact that

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the boundary which has been described in the schedule in

¶53

the original suit and also the claim made by the defendant are different property and the same is also taken note of by the trial Court while considering. The material on record from paragraph Nos.13 to 16 and so also the appellate Court in its judgment in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 concluded that the claim made by the defendant /appellant is in respect of different property and not in respect of the property which the plaintiff has claimed. However, comes to the conclusion that both the properties are adjacent to each other and when such property is identified and also granted the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule which the plaintiff claimed and also the contention of the defendant is also in respect of the different survey number and different schedule and when such being the case the very contention of the counsel cannot be accepted.

¶54

However, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44972 RSA No. 1275 of 2021

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others , contending

¶58

that when title is in dispute, a relief of injunction ought not to have been granted. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment particularly in paragraph Nos.14 to 16 of the judgment of Anantula Sudhakar's case is concerned and it is very specifically observed by the Apex Court that when there is a dispute with regard to the title is concerned and cloud on the title and then judgment of Anantula Sudhakar's will come into play. But in the case on hand, the properties are different and claim made by the appellant is also different and his survey number is different. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law and there is no any perversity in the finding of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and hence no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶59