Allowed

Smt. N S Sarojamma v. Sri Chikkappa

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2025RSA/849/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff's second appeal against reversal of a permanent injunction decree. The trial court had decreed the suit and rejected the defendants' easementary-rights counter claim, which was unchallenged. Evidence including the Village Account showed no road existed in the suit land. The High Court answered the substantial questions of law in the negative, set aside the first appellate judgment, and r

What did the court decide?

Second appeal allowed; first appellate judgment dated 17.11.2018 in R.A.No.73/2016 set aside; trial court decree dated 07.02.2013 in O.S.No.81/2008 affirmed.

Smt. N S Sarojamma Vs Sri Chikkappa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2019 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.N.S SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O SRI.L.M.CHANDRAPPA, R/AT:LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PIN CODE:577527.

¶11

REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER, SRI.L.M.CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O ALTE MAHADEVAPPA

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD E, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI CHIKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O MANTENAHALLY CHIKKAPPA,

¶17

SRI OMKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O MANTENAHALLY CHIKKAPPA,

¶18

SRI THIPPESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKAPPA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE RESPONDENT NO.1 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT GUTTIKATTE GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PIN CODE:577 527.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(R1-3 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 17.11.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.73/2016[OLD NO.25/2013], ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSADURGA, ALLOWING, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:07.02.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.81/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSADURGA.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This is plaintiff's second appeal.

¶29

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No.91/1A4 measuring 4 acres situated at Madhure Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk (for brevity, "the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

suit schedule property"). Since defendants interfered with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.81/2008 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

¶33

The defendants, by denying the plaint averments, also filed counter claim seeking a declaration of easementary rights over the alleged "ABCD" road portion which was alleged to be in the northern portion of the suit schedule property.

¶34

On appreciation of pleadings, evidence and documents, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim.

¶35

On appeal by the defendants only against the judgment and decree of permanent injunction, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

judgment and decree of the Trial Court in respect of permanent injunction.

¶40

Aggrieved by which, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶41

This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:

¶42

"1) Whether the first appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, when the trial Court has specifically declined and rejected the counter claim of the defendant with regard to the road purportedly existed on the northern side of the property of the plaintiff and said finding and decree of the trial Court has remained unchallenged ?

¶43

Whether the first appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the extent of entire suit schedule property even when the counter claim of the defendant was only in respect of his purported rights to use the road which relief was rejected by the trial Court ?"

¶44

It may be pertinent to state here that though the

¶45

counter claim of the defendants which was with regard to

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

declaration of easementary right over the road i.e., ABCD road purportedly existed on the northern side of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial Court, the same was not challenged by the defendants. Thus, the finding with regard to rejection of counter claim has attained finality.

¶49

The First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only on the ground that there was suppression of material fact with regard to alleged road in existence of the suit schedule property and also on

¶50

the ground that the Trial Court has not property considered the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in its entirety.

¶51

The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 i.e., the husband of the plaintiff and the neighbour reveals that they had no where admitted that there was a road in the suit schedule property which was used by the defendants to ingress or egress to their respective property. In addition, the evidence of PW.3 - Village Account clearly depicts that he had visited the suit schedule property and that there was

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

no road existed in the suit property and even as per the survey sketch/village map, there was no road existed in the suit schedule property. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 supports the case of the plaintiff and accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the counter claim.

¶55

On perusal of the evidence of plaintiff and the defendants, it is seen that the defendants had not seriously disputed the possession and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, as held by the Trial Court, as per the village map and the sketch issued by the Survey Department pertaining to Madhure village, there was a road in existence from Lakkenahalli in the beginning through Sy.Nos.91 and 95, however, no road was shown in the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.91/1A4. As such, it is clear that there was no road in existence which was used by the defendants to ingress and egress to their property. Thus, the plaintiff, having proved the title and possession of the suit property and having proved the interference by the defendants who

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

claimed existence of 'ABCD cart road', is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. As such, the First Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree, when the findings of the Trial Court in respect of rejection of counter claim has not been challenged by the defendants. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in the "negative". Hence, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i) The second appeal is allowed.

¶61

ii) The judgment and decree dated 17.11.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.73/2016 is set aside.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:43745 RSA No. 849 of 2019

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

iii) The judgment and decree dated 07.02.2013 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.81/2008 is affirmed.

¶66

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶67

SSD/PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Smt. N S Sarojamma v. Sri Chikkappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N S Sarojamma v. Sri Chikkappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rajappa Vs Sri M Murugendraiah

Sri H Venkatesh Vs Sri Varadasa Naika

Sri Nandish Vs the State of Karnataka

N C Mahesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Eshwaramma Vs Governement of Karnataka

Padmavathamma Vs S R Srinivas