Allowed¶64

Sri. a R Chandrashekar Reddy v. Sri. Sandesh Sagar

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2025RSA/1796/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), H.P. Sandesh J., 14.07.2025, RSA No.1796 of 2023 (DEC/INJ) — second appeal allowed; concurrent dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction reversed due to admitted mistake in plaint's western boundary (Ramanna's property shown instead of defendant No.1's); no substantial question of law framed; I.A.No.2/2023 allowed; plaint amendment directed; declaration and injunction granted. Keywords: boundary correction, amendment of plaint, reversal of concurrent findings, Section 100 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as amended (plaint's western boundary corrected to show defendant No.1's property); Trial Court directed to permit the amendment of the plaint. ¶64

Sri. a R Chandrashekar Reddy Vs Sri. Sandesh Sagar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law arises for decision in the second appeal, or whether the matter turns only on the mistaken western boundary description in the plaint. +1 more

¶59

Court's answer

No substantial question of law needs to be framed; the only dispute is the erroneous western boundary in the plaint (Ramanna's property shown instead of defendant No.1's/respondent No.1's), and the matter requires reconsideration on that basis.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

The judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court and the confirmation thereof by the First Appellate Court are reversed in view of the correction made to the plaint regarding the western boundary.

¶59

Key takeaways

There being no dispute with regard to the plaintiff's title and the plaintiff being in possession of the property claimed, the relief of declaration is granted.ratio¶62
Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant not disputing that defendant No.1 is in possession of his land on the western boundary of the plaintiff's property.ratio¶62
The appellant's counsel is directed to amend the plaint on the western boundary as sought in I.A.No.2/2023, and the Trial Court is directed to permit the correction, the respondents not disputing it.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (DEC/INJ) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2023 in R.A.No.165/2018 (1st Additional District Judge, Kolar), confirming the decree dated 16.11.2018 in O.S.No.154/2014 (Senior Civil Judge, Malur) dismissing a suit for declaration and injunction. Both Courts below were carried away by a mistake in the plaint showing the western boundary as the property of one Ramanna instead of defendant No.1's property; counsel for both sides admitted the error, respondent No.1 did not dispute the plaintiff's title nor claimed any title himself, and title deeds (Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8), RTC extracts and survey sketch were on record. Holding that no substantial question of law required framing, the High Court reversed the judgments and decrees of both Courts below, allowed I.A.No.2/2023, directed amendment of the plaint's western boundary, and granted declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as amended.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:26073 RSA No. 1796 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1796 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. A.R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. A.G. RAMAIAH REDDY R/O KAIKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE CARMELARAL POST SARJAPUR ROAD VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU - 560035.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VARUN P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. SANDESH SAGAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O SRI B.S. SOMAIAH

¶15

SRI. K.B. BEERAPPA

¶16

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶17

2(a) SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS W/O LATE SRI. K.B.BEERAPPA

¶18

2(b) SRI. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S./O LATE SRI. K.B.BEERAPPA

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26073 RSA No. 1796 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

2(c) SMT. VASANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O LATE SRI. K.B. BEERAPPA

¶22

2(d) SRI. LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O LATE SRI. K.B. BEERAPPA

¶23

2(e) SMT. SUDHAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE SRI. K.B.BEERAPPA

¶24

SRI. MUNISHAMI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. K.B. BEERAPPA

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO.2(a) TO 2(e) AND 3 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF KESARAGERE VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶26

SRI. T. GOPALAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶27

4(a) SMT. PILLAMMA, W/O LATE T. GOPALAPPA SINCE DEAD,

¶28

HER LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD

¶29

4(b) SRI. T.G. PILLE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. T. GOPALAPPA

¶30

4(c) SMT. YESHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS D/O LATE SRI. T. GOPALAPPA

¶31

4(d) SRI. NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. T. GOPALAPPA

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26073 RSA No. 1796 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

4(e) SMT. VASANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS D/O LATE SRI T GOPALAPPA

¶35

4(f) SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O LATE SRI. T. GOPALAPPA

¶36

4(g) SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. T. GOPALAPPA

¶37

RESPONDENTS NO.4(b) TO (g) ARE RESIDENTS OF TRUNASI VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. K.V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2(a to e), R3 AND R4(a to g) DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER 27.06.2025

¶40

RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2023.PASSED IN R.A. NO.165/2018 ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.154/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:26073 RSA No. 1796 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

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

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant’s counsel submits that there was a mistake in filing the suit while showing the boundary on the western side showing the property of one Ramanna's property and the same was a mistake made while filing the suit and now the appellant has realised that on the western side of the property is the property of respondent No.1.

¶48

The counsel appearing for the respondents also

¶49

not disputes the fact that his property is on the western side of the property of the plaintiff and mistake was crept in while filing a suit and which lead the two Courts to comes to such a conclusion in dismissing the suit.

¶50

Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also

¶51

the counsel appearing for the respondent in view of the submission of the respective counsel and only mentioning the boundary description an error was crept in filing the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:26073 RSA No. 1796 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

suit wherein they have shown the property of Ramanna on the western boundary of the plaintiff and it was a mistake and now the appellant has realized the same.

¶56

The counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 would contend that on the western side of the property of the plaintiff, his property is situated and he is also in possession of the property and counsel would submits that even plaintiffs are also in possession of the property and due to the error crept in the suit showing the boundary on the western side of the plaintiff, this litigation was continued. In view of the said discussion and also amendment made to the plaint averments showing the western boundary of the property of the defendant and also the plaintiff placed on record voluminous document with regard to the title is concerned since the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction and defendant No.1 is also not claiming any title in respect of the property of the plaintiff. When such material available on record and the documents which have been produced

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26073 RSA No. 1796 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

before the Court both plaint and written statement and chief evidence in O.S.No.24/2013, RTC extracts, certified copy of sale deeds at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 which are title deeds of the plaintiff, tax paid receipt, RTC extract, report and survey sketch. The Trial Court and Appellate Court also carried away with mentioning of the boundary on the western side of the different persons property instead of respondents and hence, I am of the opinion that matter requires re-consideration in view of the submissions of the respective counsels and no need to frame any substantive question of law since there is no any dispute to decide the same and only dispute is with regard to showing of boundary on the western side of the property one Mr.Ramanna instead of showing the boundary of defendant No.1/respondent No.1. Hence, the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit before the Trial Court and also the confirmation made by the First Appellate Court is reversed in view of the correction made to the plaint with regard to western boundary taking into note of

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26073 RSA No. 1796 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

the material when there is no dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiff is concerned, granted the relief of declaration as well as the plaintiff is in possession in respect of the property which the plaintiff claims and also the appellant/plaintiff also not disputes that on the western boundary of the plaintiff’s property, the defendant No.1 is also in possession of his land. Hence, permanent injunction is also granted in favour of the appellant.

¶63

In view of allowing I.A.No.2/2023 by this Court,

¶64

the appellant’s counsel is directed to amend the plaint on the western boundary as sought in the I.A.No.2/2023. The Trial Court is directed to permit the appellant to correct the plaint western boundary since the respondents also not disputes the same. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed granting the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property as amended.

¶65

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶66

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Sri. a R Chandrashekar Reddy v. Sri. Sandesh Sagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a R Chandrashekar Reddy v. Sri. Sandesh Sagar

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

H Nagamani Vs Sri H Narayana

Y. Rajashekar, Vs Surathanamma

Thimmashetty Vs Ganigara Kshemabivrudhi Sanga

Lakshminarayana Vs G Ramalingappa

Sri Basavarajappa Vs M B Gangadhara

Sri.K.v.Jayaram Vs Smt.Girijamma