Dismissed¶¶99

H Hanumegowda v. H R Ranganatha

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025RSA/66/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, RSA No. 66 of 2021 (INJ), decided 10-06-2025 by Justice H.P. Sandesh: second appeal under Section 100 CPC dismissed; concurrent findings of encroachment and decree for permanent and mandatory injunction upheld; Court Commissioner's report and sketch Ex.C.1/Ex.C.2 pivotal, no objection filed thereto; injunctive relief without declaratory relief held permissible relying on Anathula Sudhakar, AIR 2008 SC 2033; Article 65 Limitation Act noted on belated amendment application; no substantial question of law framed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the second appeal was dismissed, leaving the decrees for permanent and mandatory injunction against him intact. ¶¶99

H Hanumegowda Vs H R Ranganatha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the second appeal was dismissed, leaving the decrees for permanent and mandatory injunction against him intact.

¶¶99

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court could consider limitation even though no ground or specific defence of limitation was urged in the written statement. +2 more

¶¶60

Court's answer

On limitation, the First Appellate Court had noted Article 65 of the Limitation Act (12 years for possession of immovable property based on title) and the belatedness of the amendment sought in 2019 in a suit of 2009; accepting that reasoning, no substantial question of law arises as contended by the appellant's counsel.

¶¶92

Ratio / Principle

The contention that both the courts committed an error in appreciating the material on record, and that documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21 were not appreciated, cannot be accepted.

¶¶80

Key takeaways

The Commissioner's appointment is not in dispute; his report and sketch (Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2) were marked before the Trial Court and no objection was filed to the report on encroachment, and the same was taken note of by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court; hence the challenge to the Commissioner-based findings fails.ratio¶¶80
It is not the defendant's contention that he claims title in respect of the plaintiff's property; the plaintiff's title was not denied, the defendant contending only that an intervening CMC property existed, which both courts found not to exist.ratio¶¶86
The contention that the relief of mandatory injunction could not be granted without seeking declaration of title cannot be accepted; with the definite finding of encroachment by the defendant given by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the relief of mandatory injunction was rightly granted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings — Plaintiff (respondent) had obtained a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction on a finding that the defendant (appellant) encroached his site and constructed a cattle shed (Commissioner: East-West 10.6 ft x North-South 8.2 ft; Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2); no objection was filed to the Commissioner's report — Defendant did not claim title over the plaintiff's property nor deny the plaintiff's title, alleging only an intervening C.M.C. property which both courts found non-existent — Suit for injunction maintainable without a prayer for declaration, per the principles of Anathula Sudhakar, AIR 2008 SC 2033 — Belated amendment application (I.A.No.3) after ten years rejected, Article 65 of the Limitation Act having been noted — Concurrent findings not perverse; no substantial question of law arises — Second appeal dismissed (H.P. Sandesh J., 10.06.2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.66 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

H. HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O HANUMBEGOWDA R/O KIKKERAMMANA KOPPALU KOTE HOLENARASIPURA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. P.K.SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

H.R. RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O H.V. RAMAIAH HARADURAPURA VILLAGE

¶16

KASABA HOBLI ARAKALGUDU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573129.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.27/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.62/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶28

learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, specifically pleaded before the Trial Court that originally suit property was belongs to Srinivasa S/o late Ramaiah and Smt.Venkatalakshmamma W/o late Ramaiah as the plaintiff obtained the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1994. Thereafter, necessary documents were transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Since, then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He has

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

also got converted the property into the site. The defendant being the neighbourer of the property of the plaintiff, has encroached an area measuring East to West -12 feet, North to South – 9 fee and constructed the house. Though the plaintiff has conducted panchayath in this regard, the defendant did not heeded the words of the panchayathdars and he is trying to put up construction over the encroached area of the plaintiffs. Hence, filed the suit. In pursuance of the suit summons,

¶34

the defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that the suit itself is not maintainable and further contended that site property bearing municipal old assessment No.2154 and new assessment No.2192 measuring East-West-30 feet and North-South-50 feet situated at Kikkerammana Kottalu belonging to Town municipality was purchased by him on 18.07.1987 from one Yallappa S/o Nanjaiah. After purchase of the said property, having obtained license from the town municipality concerned with respect to construction of

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

house in the measurement of East to West -2.6 feet and North to South – 3.9 feet by leaving set back measuring East to West – 3.3 feet and North to South – 4.6 feet constructed a Mangalore tiled house and also grown 2 coconut saplings towards southern side of his house. ON 20.12.1999 by obtaining license from the town municipality, Holenarasipura, he got demolished the Mangalore tiled hose and has constructed RCC house on the same dimension and in possession of the house. In the site of the defendant, there existed kote agalu on the southern direction – 30 feet. He has put up barbed fence by installing pillars on the southern side form the said kote agalu. The kote agalu in the width of 30 feet is in existence between the property of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is also having knowledge of the said fact. The plaintiff has filed the suit only with an intention to trouble the defendant and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues with regard to

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

permanent injunction as issue Nos.1 to 3 and also addl. issue is framed in view of the specific pleading that the defendant had encroached suit schedule property and also in view of pleading of the defendant addl. issue was framed with regard to the existence of Kote agalu measuring width of 30 feet in between the plaintiff and the defendant’s property as contended by the defendant. The parties have lead their evidence and plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The defendant also examined himself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21. The Court Commissioner Sri.Kodandaramaiah is also examined as Ex.C.1 and got marked Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record as well as the Court Commissioner’s evidence, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved the issue Nos.1 to 3 with regard to the permanent injunction as

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

well as the Trial Court answered the addl. issue No.1

¶46

partly as affirmative since there is a difference of measurement in terms of the Commissioner report and hence, answered the same as partly affirmative and addl. issue No.2 in respect of the claim of the defendant answered as negative that plaintiff has not proved the very defense which he has taken and granted the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the appellant.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, R.A.No.27/2018 is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and also the contentions of the respective counsels, framed the point for consideration as whether the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence material on record and whether the judgment of the Trial Court requires an interference and whether the Trial court has passed the judgment without considering the Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.21 and

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

also an application is filed before the Appellate Court for

¶52

seeking an amendment as per I.A.No.3 for effective adjudication. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, answered all the points as negative and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. The very contention of the appellant that plaintiff has not sought for the relief of declaration also discussed in paragraph No.39 of the judgment of the Appellate Court and also in paragraph No.41 taken note of claim made by the plaintiff and also discussion was made taking into consideration of judgment of Anathula Sudhakar’s case reported in the AIR 2008 SC 2033 where plaintiff title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Therefore, when the title of the plaintiff is not in serious dispute, the question of seeking declaration of title does not arise in view of the principles laid down in the judgment also taken note of in paragraph No.42. The Appellate Court also having considered the

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Commissioner report apart from the oral and documentary evidence of respective witnesses in paragraph No.46 discussed in detail that Commissioner who appointed the suit at the instance of the plaintiff has visited disputed property and after having inspected and measured the property as per the memo of instructions of respective counsels submitted the report, wherein specifically mentioned that defendant has constructed the cattle shed in the dimension measuring East to West-10.6 feet and North to South- 8.2 feet in the property of the plaintiff by encroaching his property and also taken note of the Commissioner report and Sketch Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 and also discussion was made in paragraph No.47 with regard to the encroachment is concerned and considered in the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, he had depose that he was not present when the Court Commissioner had visited the spot. Therefore, adverse information has to be drawn against the defendant. In the circumstances and having regard to the evidence on

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

record, the plaintiff has proved the encroachment and construction made and so also with regard to the amendment sought also in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.48, 49 and 50 that the attempt was made in a belated time after lapse of 10 years. The suit was filed in the year 2009 and application was filed in the year 2019 and rejected even the application filed by the appellant and confirmed judgment of the Trial Court.

¶60

Being aggrieved by the judgment of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant in the second appeal would vehemently contend that even no ground is urged or specific defense is taken in the written statement with regard to the limitation is concerned, the First Appellate Court can consider the same. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Trial Court committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff relying upon the Commissioner report and also counsel would vehemently

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

contend that First Appellate Court was not right in confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Both the Courts mainly relies upon the evidence of Commissioner and the same is erraneous.

¶65

The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and when the appellant disputed the very title of the plaintiff, ought to have filed a suit for the relief of declaration and sought for the relief of possession and hence, the Court has to frame substantial question of law.

¶66

Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent in his argument would vehemently contend that that specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant is having the property on the northern side of the property of the plaintiff. The specific case is also that there is no any existence of any other property and defendant took the contention that the property belongs to the municipality is in existence in between the same and

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Commissioner was also appointed and Commissioner also

¶71

given the report stating that no such property is in existence and also given definite finding that the defendant had constructed the cattle shed in the property belongs to the plaintiff and also no objection is filed to the Commissioner report and the same is also observed in the judgment of the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.50 of the judgment, when such being the case, now he cannot contend that the construction made by him that is in the property in between the plaintiff and defendant which belongs to the C.M.C and Trial Court also given the definite finding with regard to the additional issue No.2 that no such existence of that property. Both the Courts given fact finding with regard to the very contention of the defendant that no such property is in existence. When such being the case, there is no ground to admit and framed any substantive question. Hence, it doesn't require any interference.

¶72

12 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and taking into note of the averments made in the plant, it is a very specific case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the property and thereafter, property is also converted and also the specific case that defendant has encroached portion of the site belongs to the plaintiff and on the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant in the written statement that he did not encroach the property of the plaintiff but what he had put up construction that is the property belongs to the C.M.C and not the property of the plaintiff.

¶76

It is important to note that when the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, Court has to take note of the possession of the plaintiff and with regard to issue Nos.1, to 3, the same has been answered in coming to the conclusion that from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession of the property and also taken note of the pleadings of the plaintiff with regard to the encroachment and also seeking the relief of mandatory

¶77

13 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

injunction and also the defense of the defendant was also considered and framed an additional issue No.2 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 also dealt with by the Trial Court having considered the factual aspects of the case and evidence available on record that is both oral and documentary evidence. The fact that Commissioner was appointed is also not in dispute and he has given the report in terms of Ex.C.1 and Ex.C2 that is the report and sketch were also marked before Trial Court and also no objection is filed to the Commissioner report regarding encroachment is concerned and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, the very contention of the appellant’s counsel that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the material cannot be accepted and other contention that document Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21 are also not appreciated cannot be accepted.

¶81

The main contention of the counsel that this Court has to frame substantial question of law with regard

¶82

14 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

to the limitation as well as fact finding of the Trial Court cannot be accepted. The very contention that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there is an encroachment and counsel would contend that when the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property, cannot seeks for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

¶86

The counsel appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court except contending that in between the plaintiff property, there is a property belongs to the CMC not denied the very title of the plaintiff and it is also not the contention of the defendant that he is claiming title in respect of the property of the plaintiff. When such being the case, the Trial Court also taken note of the judgment of Anathula Sudhakar’s case. The very contention of the counsel that without seeking the relief of declaration cannot seek the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be accepted and when the definite finding was given by the both the Trial Court as well as

¶87

15 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

the First Appellate Court that there is an encroachment on

¶91

the part of the defendant rightly granted the relief of mandatory injunction.

¶92

The other contention that the Appellate Court ought to have considered the item No.3 for the amendment. The Appellate Court also in detail discussed the amendment sought and even in paragraph Nos.48, 49 and 50 taken note of Article 65 of Limitation Act for possession of immovable property or any interest therein, based on title is 12 years when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff also discussed in paragraph No.49. The very reason given by the appellant before the Appellate Court also taken note of and also taken note of the suit was filed in the year 2009 and an amendment was sought in the year 2019 after thought when the appellant has suffered a decree of clearing of encroachment which was in his encroachment. When such reasoning is given by the Appellate Court, I do not find any ground even frame any substantive question

¶93

16 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:19677 RSA No. 66 of 2021

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

of law as contended by the appellant’s counsel. The reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court is not perverse and that too based on the factual aspects as well as Commissioner report who visited the spot and given the report in terms of Ex.C.1 and Ex.C2. When such material on record, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law.

¶97

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶98

ORDER

¶99

The Second Appeal is dismissed .

¶100

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶101

RHS

¶102

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

H Hanumegowda v. H R Ranganatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H Hanumegowda v. H R Ranganatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S Kumar Vs Smt Susheela Mary

Smt Dyavamma Vs Leysegowda

Sri Rajegowda Vs Sri Muddegowda

Smt. Rudramma Shedthi @ Rudrakshiamma Vs Mr Rajarama Shetty

Smt.Yashoda Vs Sri.Muniraju

Sri.K.a. Ravi Chengappa Vs the Chief Secretary