Dismissed¶43

Smt. Gopamma v. Sri. Venkatesh

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025RSA/472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adverse possession; suit for declaration and injunction; concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court; no substantial question of law; dismissal of regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC; O.S. No.127/2001 decree protecting possession against dispossession without due process of law; defendants' separate suit for possession pending; Tumakuru courts; Karnataka High Court; NC: 2025:KHC:40293.

What did the court decide?

On going through the records and the judgments and decrees of the courts below, this Court noticed that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have not established adverse possession over the property. ¶36

Smt. Gopamma Vs Sri. Venkatesh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:40293 RSA No. 472 of 2018

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT GOPAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶9

SRI NARASIMHAIAH, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHOKKENAHALLI VILLAGE - 572104, URUDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI T GOVINDA RAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI VENKATESH, S/O LATE SASALU THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶15

SRI KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE SASALU THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHOKKENAHALLI VILLAGE - 572104, GOWDANAPALYA MAJARE - 572104, KASARAMADU POST, URUDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK,.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 17.10.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:40293 RSA No. 472 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

12/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 26.11.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.1069/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is against the concurrent finding in a suit

¶27

for declaration and injunction. The suit is dismissed. Both

¶28

the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

plaintiffs/appellants would submit that plaintiffs/appellants had filed a suit in O.S. No.127/2001. The said suit is decreed holding that the plaintiffs/appellants shall not be dispossessed from suit schedule property without due process of law. Thus, he would urge that the suit could not be dismissed.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40293 RSA No. 472 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel for the

¶34

respondents/defendants would urge that plaintiffs in the cross-examination admitted that they had filed a suit in O.S. No.127/2001 without having any right.

¶35

On going through the records and going

¶36

through the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, it is noticed that both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have not established adverse possession over the property.

¶37

In addition to that, this Court in O.S. No.127/2001 itself would indicate that the plaintiffs can be in possession of suit property till they are evicted in due process of law.

¶38

Since it is stated that the

¶39

defendants/respondents have filed a suit for possession to claim possession of the properties, no substantial question of law would arise in the present case.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:40293 RSA No. 472 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶45

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27