Smt Sundaramma Vs Sri Nagappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Sundaramma Vs Sri Nagappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in passing the impugned judgments without considering the evidence and documents on record, including the weight to be given to the observations in O.S.No.3/1995 and O.S.No.348/1994 (as contended by the appellants). +2 more

Court's answer

Since the boundaries of the suit schedule property are one and the same, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record, and the impugned judgments call for no interference by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

On the unchallenged decree in O.S.No.348/1994, it is proved that Malathesh is in possession of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.33/2011, and that such possession was interfered with by Sundaramma and her family members.

Key takeaways

The interference of Nagappa and Malathesh with the possession of Sundaramma's property as claimed in O.S.No.113/2010 is not proved, nor was it proved in the earlier suit O.S.No.3/1995.ratio¶79
No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in these appeals; accordingly, the appeals lack merit.ratio¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:44770), Rajesh Rai K, J., 03.11.2025 — Regular Second Appeals Nos. 378/2019 (INJ) and 389/2019 under Sec.100 CPC against the judgments and decrees dated 17.11.2018 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba in R.A.Nos. 23/2017 and 24/2017, confirming respectively (i) the dismissal of O.S.No.113/2010 (Sundaramma and Shekharappa v. Nagappa and Malathesh — suit for permanent injunction over property claimed under Gift Deed dated 04.11.1985 executed by one Neelappa) and (ii) the decree of O.S.No.33/2011 (Malathesh v. Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi — suit for possession over Khaneshumari No.82). Prior adjudications relied on: O.S.No.348/1994 (Krishnappa, brother of Malathesh, v. Sundaramma and family — prohibitory injunction) decreed and never challenged by the appellants; O.S.No.3/1995 (Shekharappa v. Nagappa and others) dismissed for failure to prove interference. Held: the boundaries of the suit schedule property being one and the same, Malathesh's possession was proved while the appellants' interference stood proved and the converse interference by Nagappa and Malathesh remained unproved; the concurrent findings of the courts below required no correction, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arose, and both appeals were dismissed with all the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld.

NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2019 (INJ)

C/W

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2019

IN RSA No. 378/2019

BETWEEN:

SMT SUNDARAMMA W/O. SHEKHARAPPA, HINDU, AGE 74 YEARS

SHEKHARAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA BADIGER, HINDU, AGE 84 YEARS

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BOTH ARE R/O BHARANGI VILLAGE, ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN:577 429

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S ANKALKOTE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI NAGAPPA S/O. ESHWARAPPA, HINDU, AGE 62 YEARS,

SRI. MALATESH S/O. ESHWARAPPA, HINDU, AGE 52 YEARS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

BOTH ARE R/O. BHARANGI VILLAGE, ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

PIN: 577 429

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED IN RA NO.23/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC., COURT, SORABA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.113/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SORABA.

IN RSA NO. 389/2019

BETWEEN:

SMT SUNDARAMMA W/O SHEKHARAPPA, HINDU AGE 74 YEARS

SHEKHARAPPA

S/O RUDRAPPA BADIGER, HINDU, AGE 84 YEARS

MOUNESHAPPA S/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

GANPATHI S/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

ALL ARE R/O BHARANGI VILLAGE, ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 429

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S ANKALKOTE, ADVOCATE)

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

AND:

MALATHESH S/O ESHWARAPPA HINDU, AGE 59 YEARS R/O BHARANGI VILLAGE, ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 429 AT PRESENT R/O BHATKAL

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED IN RA NO 24/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.09.2017 PASSED IN OS NO 33/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

RSA.378/2019 is by the plaintiff-Sundaramma and Shekharappa, who have filed O.S.No.113/2010 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants-Nagappa and Malathesh from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017 and the same was

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

affirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A No.23/2017 filed by the said Sundaramma and Shekharappa vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2018.

RSA.No.389/2019 is by the defendantsSundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2018 of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.24/2017, which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.33/2011 filed by one Malathesh, whereby the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in which the suit is decreed.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred by their names.

It is the case of Sundramma and Shekharappa in O.S.No.113/2010 that they are the absolute owners in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of a Gift Deed dated 04.11.1985 executed by one Neelappa. The revenue entries of the suit schedule property were mutated in their names and they were residing in the house situated in

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

Khaneshumari No.103/1. However, Nagappa and Malathesh having no right, title or interest interfered with the possession by making an attempt to encroach the suit schedule property of Sundaramma and Shekharappa in the northern portion. However, the defendants denied the plaint averments and contended that, northern portion of the suit schedule property was owned by one Neelappa in Khaneshumari No.80/1 and to its northern side, there is panchayat road and in the southern side of the said road, property bearing Khaneshumari No.80/2 is in existence. According to Nagappa and Malathesh, khaneshumari Nos.80/2, 81 and 82 are their properties. The boundary described in the suit schedule property is the property bearing khaneshumari No.82 and in the said property, Nagappa and Malathesh have constructed a hut to preserve their items and Sundaramma, Shekharappa and their children have disturbed their possession. Hence, the brother of Nagappa and Malathesh one Krishnappa filed suit a in O.S No.348/1994 against Sundaramma and Shekharappa and obtained permanent injunction. Thereafter, Shekharappa filed a suit in O.S No.3/1995 against Nagappa, Malathesh and Krishnappa. The said suit was dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

04.03.2004. As such, there is no cause of action arose to file O.S No.113/2010 by Sundaramma and Shekharappa and since the alleged interference by Sundaramma and Shekharappa in the property of Nagappa and Malathesh is proved in O.S No.348/1994 and O.S No.3/1995.

The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit filed by Sundaramma and Shekharappa. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, upon reassessment of the evidence confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Regular Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, Sundaramma and Shekharappa are before this Court in RSA.378/2019.

On the other hand, it is case of Malathesh in O.S.No.33/2011 that he is the absolute owner in possession of property bearing khaneshumari No.82 of Barangi Village and Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi disturbed his possession in the suit schedule property. As such, his brother Krishnappa filed a suit in O.S.No.348/1994 against Sundaramma and Shekharappa for the relief of permanent

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of his brother Krishnappa. However, the suit filed by Shekharappa in O.S.No.3/1995 against Malathesh and his family members for the relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. Hence, he prayed for decree of possession in respect of suit schedule property against Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi.

However, Sundaramma and her family members denied the plaint averments and boundaries of the suit schedule property and also denied rough sketch produced by Malathesh in respect of the suit schedule property. According to Sundaramma and her family members, the property bearing Khaneshumari No.80/1 measuring 80 X 180 feet was acquired by Sundaramma and Shekharappa through Gift deed dated 04.11.1985 and Mouneshappa s/o Sundaramma and Shekharappa are residing in the said property for about 25 years.

The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings and framed the relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail decreed the suit filed by Malathesh. On

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

appeal by Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi, the First Appellate Court, upon reassessment of evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, Sundaramma, Shekharappa, Mouneshappa and Ganapathi are before this Court in RSA No.389/2019.

I have heard Sri Rajendra S Ankalkote for learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred while passing the impugned judgments without considering the evidence and documents on record. According to him, the appellants-Sundaramma and her family members have acquired possession over the suit schedule property under the registered Gift Deed dated 04.11.1985 and they are in actual possession of property bearing Khaneshumari No.80/1 and Malathesh and Nagappa are in possession of property bearing Khaneshumari No.80/2, which prima facie discloses that, both properties are separate and distinct.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

Further, it is contended that, the observation in O.S.No.3/1995 or O.S.No.348/1994 ought not have considered by the Trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by Malathesh and while dismissing the suit filed by Sundaramma and her family members without considering relevant documents placed by Sundaramma and her family members.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, so also perused the documents and impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

As could be gathered from records, it is undisputed that, before filing O.S.No.113/2010 by Sundaramma and Shekarappa against Nagappa and Malathesh; Shekarappa has filed O.S.No.3/1995 against Nagappa and Malathesh for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the same suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs were failed to prove the interference by the defendants.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

Further, Krishnappa brother of Malathesh filed a suit in O.S.No.348/1994 against Sundaramma and her family members for the relief of prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.33/2011 (i.e., the suit filed by Malathesh) and the said suit was decreed by holding that the plaintiff has proved the description and the boundaries of the suit schedule property and also proved his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The said judgment and decree has not been challenged by Sundaramma and her family members. In such circumstance, it is proved that Malathesh is in possession of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.33/2011, which was interfered

by Sundramma and her family members. Whereas, the interference of Nagappa and Malathesh in respect of the possession of the Sundramma's property as claimed in O.S.No.113/2010 is not proved and even in the earlier suit in O.S.No.3/1995. Since the boundaries of the suit schedule property is one and the same, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgments, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. As such there is no

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:44770 RSA No. 378 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 389 of 2019

HC-KAR

question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals lack merits and are dismissed . Consequently, the impugned judgments and decree passed in O.S.No.113/2010 and O.S.No.33/2011 passed by the Trial Court and in R.A.No.23/2017 and R.A.No.24/2017 passed by the First Appellate Court are upheld.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgments and decrees dated 17.11.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba) in R.A.No.23/2017 and R.A.No.24/2017, dismissing the appeals and confirming respectively the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017 in O.S.No.113/2010 and dated 18.09.2017 in O.S.No.33/2011 (Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba)¶25
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba · 17.11.2018
Prior proceeding
Filing of O.S.No.348/1994 by Krishnappa (brother of Malathesh) against Sundaramma and her family members for prohibitory injunction¶78
Prior proceeding
Decree of O.S.No.348/1994 on proof of the description, boundaries and lawful possession of the schedule property¶78
Prior proceeding
The O.S.No.348/1994 judgment and decree was not challenged by Sundaramma and her family members¶78
Prior proceeding
Earlier suit O.S.No.3/1995 filed by Shekarappa against Nagappa and Malathesh for permanent injunction in respect of the same suit schedule property¶75
Prior proceeding
Dismissal of O.S.No.3/1995 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove interference by the defendants¶75
Prior proceeding
Recital that O.S.No.3/1995 was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.03.2004 and that, accordingly, no cause of action arose for O.S.No.113/2010¶58
Prior proceeding
Filing of O.S.No.113/2010 by Sundaramma and Shekharappa against Nagappa and Malathesh seeking permanent injunction over the suit schedule property¶46
Prior proceeding
Dismissal of O.S.No.113/2010 by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2017¶46
Prior proceeding
Affirmation of the dismissal by the First Appellate Court in R.A No.23/2017 vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2018¶49
Prior proceeding
R.A.No.24/2017 filed against the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 in O.S.No.33/2011, a possession suit filed by Malathesh¶50
Prior proceeding
Decree of O.S.No.33/2011 by the Trial Court in favour of Malathesh after framing the relevant issues and examining the evidence¶65
Prior proceeding
Dismissal of R.A.No.24/2017 by the First Appellate Court upon reassessment of evidence, confirming the Trial Court's judgment and decree¶68