Ravigouda S/O Bhimangouda Patil Anr. Vs Hanamanthraya S/O Sidramappa Deshpande Anr. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ravigouda S/O Bhimangouda Patil Anr. Vs Hanamanthraya S/O Sidramappa Deshpande Anr. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment and decree of the Trial Court confirmed to the extent of the decree of permanent injunction; findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court locating the bund in the defendants' land set aside; parties directed to maintain status quo as to the existence of the bund with periodic maintenance; ownership of the bund left open for determination in a properly constituted suit.

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court's definite conclusion locating the bund within the limits of the defendants' land was reached on neither any evidence nor any basis.

Key takeaways

Neither party having led evidence on the location of the bund, the Trial Court fell short of the evidence to hold that the bund is located within the lands of the defendants; besides, in a suit for bare injunction without any counter-claim by the defendants, a declaratory relief for the mere asking could not have been granted.ratio¶160
The First Appellate Court was equally not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting the relief of permanent injunction, and could not have affirmed the Trial Court's finding on the location of the bund in the defendants' land.ratio¶161
In the facts of the case and in light of the undisputed existence of the bund since time immemorial for the benefit of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, the only inference permissible is that the said bund is situated between the properties of both parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (preferred by the original plaintiffs) against the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court, which had allowed the defendants' regular appeal and set aside the Trial Court's judgment and decree granting the plaintiffs a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing damage to or demolishing a portion of an age-old bund benefiting the parties' agricultural lands in Agnoor village, Horapur taluk. The Trial Court had decreed the suit but had additionally located the bund within the defendants' land; the plaintiffs' cross-objection on that location finding was against them in the First Appellate Court. Held by the High Court: (i) neither party led evidence on the location of the bund; the Trial Court's definite conclusion placing the bund in the defendants' land was reached on neither evidence nor basis, and in a suit for bare injunction, without any counter-claim by the defendants, such a declaratory relief for the mere asking could not have been granted; (ii) the First Appellate Court was equally not justified in reversing the injunction decree while affirming that location finding; (iii) on the undisputed position that the bund existed since time immemorial for the benefit of both parties (the plaintiffs' land lying at a higher level, with water flowing through the bund to prevent soil erosion), the only permissible inference was that the bund lay between the properties of both parties; preserving the bund, restraining both sides from causing damage and maintaining status quo (with periodic maintenance) would meet the ends of justice. Appeal allowed; substantial questions of law answered affirmatively; Trial Court's judgment and decree confirmed to the extent of the permanent injunction; findings of both lower courts placing the bund in the defendants' land set aside; ownership of the bund left open to be determined in a properly constituted suit, the parties to maintain status quo meanwhile.