G.C. Nagareddy Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

G.C. Nagareddy Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: both decrees (O.S.No.67/2011 dated 04.02.2012 and R.A.No.18/2012 dated 06.09.2012) set aside; matter remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration with liberty to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and to the respondent-State to file written statement/additional written statement on the merger plea; parties permitted to adduce additional evidence; interim restraint against any change in the nature of the property until the suit is decided; parties to appear before the trial Court on 17.10.2025 without further notice; Registry to send the ADLR report with other records to the trial Court forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties (framed as Issue No.1). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent-State has come out with a plea that portions of the properties have merged (placing reliance on revenue records of the year 1902 and subsequent years), this Court is of the view that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to meet those documents.

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2012 passed in O.S.No.67/2011 and the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Challakere in R.A.No.18/2012 are set aside.ratio¶66
The matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.ratio¶70
Because new contentions relating to merger were raised before this Court, the plaintiff is at liberty to amend the plaint seeking appropriate relief and the respondent-State is at liberty to file a written statement and additional written statement on its merger plea.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC by the plaintiff against concurrent rejection of his bare-injunction suit (O.S.No.67/2011, Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Molakalmuru, decree dated 04.02.2012) and first appeal (R.A.No.18/2012, Senior Civil Judge, Challakere, decree dated 06.09.2012) concerning Sy.Nos.116, 117/2, 117/3, 120/1 and 97/1P3, Gudihalli Village, Challakere Taluk. During pendency, court-commissioned surveys (Surveyor appointed 05.02.2020; fresh survey by the ADLR after notice, report dated 21.07.2025, unobjected to) indicated that portions of Sy.Nos.115, 116, 117 and 120 may stand merged in Sy.No.88, said to be a lake of the State; the State pressed this merger plea relying on revenue records of 1902 and subsequent years, a contention never raised before the Courts below. Holding that the plaintiff must be heard on this new material, the High Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside both judgments and decrees, remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration, permitted amendment of the plaint, filing of (additional) written statements and additional evidence, expressly reserved the merits, and directed that there be no change in the nature of the property till disposal (existence of the bund undisputed; photographs showing some trees); parties to appear on 17.10.2025.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2349 OF 2012 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

G.C. NAGAREDDY S/O LATE G.CHIKKANNNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DRILL MASTER, RESIDING AT GUDIHALLI VILLAGE, TALUK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK- 577 522.

&APPELLANT

(BY SRI. P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA- 577 501.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, CHALLAKERE.

THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHALLAKERE- 577522.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

B.P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE 46 YEARS, SANGOLLIRAYANNA ROAD, I CROSS, CHALLAKERE- 577 522.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KEMPANNA, AAG A/W

SRI. G.RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 6.9.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 4.2.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.67/2011 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MOLAKALMURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is not yet admitted. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the

learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

The plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.67/2011 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Molakalmuru for the relief of injunction.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants should not obstruct the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and not to remove the trees and the bund in the suit schedule properties.

The suit is filed in respect of the suit properties bearing Sy.No.116 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas, Sy.No.117/2 measuring 1 acres 6 guntas, Sy.No.117/3 measuring 3 acres, Sy.No.120/1 measuring 6 acres and

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

Sy.No.97/1P3 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Challakere Taluk, Talaku Hobli, Gudihalli Village.

Defendant No.3 filed Written Statement and contested the suit. The trial Court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

First Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

The issue No.1 is relating to the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule properties and issue No.2 is relating to the trees and the bund referred to in the plaint as well as the description of the properties.

The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties. However, it has come to the conclusion that the ownership

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

and existence of the trees and the bund is not established and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

First Appellate Court concurring the finding of the trial Court held that the plaintiff has not established the existence of the trees and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

This Court vide order dated 05.02.2020, had appointed the Surveyor as the Commissioner to measure properties bearing Sy.No.88, which is said to be a lake belonging to the respondent/State and the report was secured. Since it was urged that, the report was submitted that the survey was done without notice to the appellant, on 12.06.2025, this Court directed the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records (for short 'ADLR') to conduct a survey after notice to the parties.

The jurisdictional ADLR, on 21.07.2025 has produced the survey report. The said survey report is taken on record.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

Both parties have not filed any objections to the said survey report dated 21.07.2025. The perusal of the said survey report would indicate that a portion of properties bearing Sy.Nos.115, 116, 117 and 120 are merged in property bearing Sy.No.88.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would submit that the plea relating to merger was not raised by the defendants before the trial Court and as such the records relating to alleged merger not be looked into. It is his contention that, since the report would indicate that the portion in orange colour on the appellant's property and is said to have been merged in Sy.No.88, there has to be a decree for possession. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that only one property is purchased after the alleged merger and remaining properties with the plaintiff since the beginning from the plaintiff's ancestor.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the merger has taken place in accordance with law and the plaintiff has lost right over the properties, which are merged in Sy.No.88, as such the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to the relief of injunction.

In support of his contention relating to merger, learned Additional Advocate General has produced the revenue records of the year 1902 and of subsequent years. It is urged that the plaintiff has not purchased the property, which is shown in the orange portion in the survey sketch as the alleged purchase has taken place after the merger.

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

As already noticed that the suit is only for bare injunction. Only defendant No.3 has contested the suit. The dispute relating to the encroachment or the alleged

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

merger has arisen only after the Courts secured the report

from the jurisdictional ADLR, Challakere.

Since the respondent-State has come out with a plea that it is a case of merger of portion of properties bearing Nos.155, 116, 117 and 120 and is placing its hands on the revenue records of the year 1902 and subsequent years, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to meet the said documents. Under these circumstances, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in-part .

ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Molakalmuru in OS.No.67/2011 and the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Challakere in RA.No.18/2012 are to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

iii) The matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

iv) Since new contentions are raised before this Court relating to the merger, the plaintiff is at liberty to amend the plaint by seeking appropriate relief and the respondent-State is also at liberty to file Written Statement and additional Written Statement in support of its plea relating to the merger.

v) Thereafter, the parties are to be permitted to give additional evidence, if they wish to, and later the Court shall decide the case in accordance with the law.

vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

vii) Since the existence of the bund is not in dispute and since the photographs produced before this Court will also reveal the existence of some trees, if not all the trees mentioned in the plaint, there shall

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:38118 RSA No. 2349 of 2012

HC-KAR

not be any further changes in the nature of the property, till the suit is decided.

viii) The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 17.10.2025 without any further notice.

ix) The Registry of this Court shall send the report submitted by the ADLR to the trial Court along with the other records forthwith.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

PHM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11