B M Rudregowda Vs S C Latha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

B M Rudregowda Vs S C Latha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved her possession over the suit schedule property. +3 more

Court's answer

The identity of the suit schedule property stands established by the categorical admission of D.W.1 (considered by the Trial Court in its paragraph No.16) that his property is in the lower portion and the plaintiff's property is in the upper portion.

Ratio / Principle

Since the defendant admits he has no right over the suit schedule properties and has no property in existence after the house of the plaintiff, his entry on the guise of an existing road amounts to interference with the plaintiff's possession; the claim of a right to use the road is untenable.

Key takeaways

The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on possession, identity of the property and interference raise no substantial question of law; the Court declined to admit the second appeal or frame any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.ratio¶¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeal (INJ) under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings. Plaintiff-respondent S.C. Latha claimed possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property — said to be gifted by her husband Devarajegowda and, per the records, purchased from Prasanna, brother of the defendant-appellant B.M. Rudregowda — and sought permanent injunction against the defendant, who pleaded family cattle-grazing use, wrong boundaries, and a right of way through the land. The Trial Court decreed injunction on 22.12.2020 (O.S.No.324/2018); the First Appellate Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on 22.07.2024 (R.A.No.51/2022). In the RSA, the High Court relied on D.W.1's admissions: the defendant's land lies in the lower portion and the plaintiff's in the upper portion; he has no right over the suit schedule property; and he owns no property beyond the plaintiff's house, so his claimed right to use the road through the suit land is untenable and his entry constitutes interference with possession. Finding no substantial question of law, the Court dismissed the regular second appeal.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1595 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

B.M. RUDREGOWDA S/O LATE MULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O KADVANTHI VILLAGE BOGASE POST, KHANDYA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 101.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

S.C. LATHA W/O B.M. DEVARAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O KADVANTHI VILLAGE BOGASE POST, KHANDYA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 101.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. LOKANATHA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.324/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveatorrespondent.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant is that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That the husband of the plaintiff namely Devarajegowda had executed the gift deed with respect to the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is growing the coffee and silver trees along with other crops in the suit property. The plaintiff had also fenced the suit property. Except the plaintiff, nobody have any manner of right, title and

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

interest over the suit property. The defendant without having any right over the property is damaging the standing crops in the suit property by letting Cattle and Buffaloes into the suit property. Even the defendant has attempted to encroach the suit property. The defendant is backed by political elements. The illegal act of the defendant is resisted by the plaintiff with great difficulty. That on 18.07.2018, the defendant and his supporters came near the property and attempted to damage the crops existed in the suit property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction, since he had lodged the complaint to police, but they have not taken any action.

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared and filed the written statement, wherein it is categorically contented that the plaintiff got created the alleged documents. Hence, plaintiff has to prove with regard to the documents and also cause of action and further contended that plaint schedule property originally belongs to younger brother of the defendant by name B.M. Prasanna and said Prasanna had acquired the said property through registered partition deed of family partition. The plaint schedule property was

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

neither cultivated by the said Prasanna nor the plaintiff, till this date. The plaint schedule property is wet land and the said vacant land was used by all the family members of plaintiff and defendant for cattle grazing and the same is not cultivated with any crop and the same is not fenced as alleged by the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is bifurcated and it is divided by the road and Sy.Nos.187/6 and 187/7 measuring 12 guntas and 11 guntas respectively are not bounded with common boundaries as alleged and shown in the plaint and they are separate pieces of lands. The water pipe line is passed through the said suit schedule property since from long time, which was used by the defendant and other villagers for drinking water and irrigation purposes. The plaintiff in order to have the favourable order and to mislead the Court has intentionally shown wrong boundaries to the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and admission in paragraph No.12 as well as admission in the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

cross-examination of D.W.1 in paragraph No.16, taken note of the very identity of the property and the defendant has not produced any document in respect of the claim made by him. The Trial Court also discussed the same in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 and taken note of that defendant might have right and possession over other property, but it is not in respect of the suit property. The defendant had not disproved the right and possession over the suit schedule property which belongs to the plaintiff and the document clearly discloses that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, answered point No.1 as ‘affirmative’ that plaintiff is in possession of the property and with regard to the interference is concerned, the same is also taken note of while answering issue Nos.2 to 4 and granted the relief of permanent injunction.

Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.51/2022. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo formulated the points whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that plaintiff has proved her possession over the suit schedule property, whether there

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

was interference by the defendant and whether it requires interference of the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraph No.18 taken note of existence of road leading to the house of the plaintiff and also taken note that the same leads only to the house of the plaintiff and though the defendant admits the road leading to house of the plaintiff and proceeds further to a hill, towards hill side, he has no lands or the house. Then the defendant is having a right to use such road is not acceptable. Further, the First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that no case is made out that apart from the defendant any other persons having the lands are house after the house of plaintiff to use the said road, therefore the contention of defendant that the road exists in suit schedule properties is the public road is not acceptable and reasoning is given that on the guise of road, the defendant is interfering with possession of the plaintiff and the very contention in written statement is also discussed in detail in paragraph No.19. Though, it is contended that boundaries are not specifically mentioned and it is not the common boundary, the same is discussed in paragraph No.21 by the Trial Court

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not shown in the schedule of the plaint or in the averments of the plaint with respect to existence of road. That apart, defendant to show any of the boundaries shown in the schedule of the plaint to the schedule property is incorrect, no evidence is placed on record and taking note of the same, comes to the conclusion that defendant admitted the existence of suit schedule properties and in the absence of any material to show boundaries are incorrect, contention of the defendant cannot be accepted and confirmed the judgment of Trial Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contend that Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties and also contend that both the Courts grossly erred in granting the prayer of permanent injunction without considering the aspect that properties which are not having specific identification or boundaries by which plaintiff fails to prove exact possession of the properties as on the date of suit. Hence, this Court has to

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

admit the second appeal and frame the substantial question of law.

The learned counsel appearing for the caveatorrespondent would submit that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court not committed any error and taken note of the possession as well as identity of the property.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent and also considering the factual aspects of the case, the prayer made by the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that defendant is causing interference for enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The records also reveal that plaintiff had purchased the property from the brother of the defendant i.e. from one Mr. Prasanna. It has also emerged from the records that there was a partition between Mr. Prasanna and defendant and it is also very clear that in the admission on the part of D.W.1 which is considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.16, he categorically admitted the very identity of the property of the plaintiff i.e., his property is in the lower portion and the property of the plaintiff is in the upper portion. Hence, with regard to the

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

identity of the property is concerned, there is an admission and he would also submit that he would get water from upper portion to lower portion of the property and also categorically admits that road is in existence for use as it existed earlier and also categorically admits that he is not having any right in respect of the suit schedule property. But, only claims that there is a road and he has got right over the road and hence, it is clear that there is interference on the part of the defendant and taking into note of this admission, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that defendant is interfering with possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property on the guise that there exists a road and it appears that the plaintiff had purchased the property of his brother and he is troubling the plaintiff.

The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, particularly in paragraph Nos. 18 and 21 made an observation that it is relevant to note that defendant admits the road leading to the house of the plaintiff and proceeds further to a hill, towards hill side, he has no lands or the house. Then the defendant is having a right to use such

NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

10 -

HC-KAR

road is not acceptable, since he is not having any land even after the road which is in existence. Further, no case is made out apart from the defendant that any other persons having the lands or house after the house of plaintiff to use the said road. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that road exists in suit schedule properties is the public road is also not acceptable. The First Appellate Court also with regard to the contention in written statement discussed in paragraph No.19 and so also with regard to the description is concerned in paragraph No.21 comes to the conclusion that defendant though disputed the description of the property, not given correct description of the property and both question of fact and question of law is considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and it appears that the appellant is the neighbouring owner of the land and even specific admission is given with regard to very existence of the property of the plaintiff and clear admission is given that he is not having any right over the suit schedule properties and also admits that there exists road.

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

No doubt, Exs.D1 and D2 are confronted to the plaintiff, the same is admitted that there exists a road and both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note that even if road proceeds further, the defendant is not having any other property after the house of the plaintiff which is in existence and the plaintiff is having said road and when such property is not in existence after the house of the plaintiff, it is clear that he is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, answered all the issues in ‘affirmative’, in coming to the conclusion that there is a clear admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination that he is not having any right over the suit schedule properties and no property in existence after the house of the plaintiff. When such being the case, it clearly discloses that without any right, the defendant is interfering with possession of the plaintiff, on the guise that there exists a road and the same is considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47282 RSA No. 1595 of 2024

HC-KAR

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40