Dismissed¶53

Sri Yenjappa v. Sri Gangappa

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2025RSA/870/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 870 of 2025 (INJ); decided 16.12.2025 by H.P. Sandesh J.; second appeal under S.100 CPC dismissed at admission stage; concurrent findings of Trial Court (O.S.No.345/2011, decree 30.08.2022) and First Appellate Court (R.A.No.24/2022, decree 20.11.2024) upheld; D.W.1's cross-examination admission of plaintiff's possession over 2 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.75/4; written-statement denial construed as interference; no substantial question of law; permanent injunction; Doddaballapura.

What did the court decide?

There is no ground to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law; the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court stand. ¶46

Sri Yenjappa Vs Sri Gangappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53520 RSA No. 870 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.870 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. YENJAPPA S/O. BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶11

SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶12

SRI VENKATACHALAIAH S/O. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. GANGAPPA S/O. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE SASALU HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:53520 RSA No. 870 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.345/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPUR.

¶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 and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶28

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶29

The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53520 RSA No. 870 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

defendants made an attempt to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, sought for the relief of permanent injunction.

¶33

The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the very possession of the plaintiff and when the evidence was led in before the Trial Court, D.W.1 categorically admitted that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and though denied the same in the written statement. Hence, the Trial Court considering denial by the defendants with regard to possession of the property by the plaintiff, while answering issue Nos.2 and 4, comes to the conclusion that defendants have contended that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and the said contention of the defendants reveal that they have denied the rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property without any proof. Hence, the conduct of the defendants amounts to an interference and passed an order of permanent injunction.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the said finding, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also on re-application of both oral and documentary

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53520 RSA No. 870 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

evidence, particularly considering the admission on the part of D.W.1 and also the fact that appellants are not denying the title to the extent of 2 acres 2 guntas of land which had been purchased by the plaintiff, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants brought to notice of this Court admission on the part of P.W.1, wherein he categorically says that when he started to construct a house in the year 2008, the defendants started interfering with his possession and with regard to interference is concerned, he has not given any complaint to the Police or to the Panchayath and thereafter, they have not given any trouble. Hence, referring this admission, the counsel would contend that when there was no interference by the defendants, question of granting the relief of permanent injunction does not arise.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the material on record, the Trial Court with regard to possession is concerned, taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross examination, who categorically

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53520 RSA No. 870 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

admits possession of plaintiff’s property and while granting the relief with regard to interference is concerned while answering issue Nos.2 and 4, taken note that in the written statement specifically denied the right and possession of the plaintiff. However, admits the same in the cross examination. Hence, the Trial Court taken note of conduct of the defendants which amounts to interference and when he has denied the very possession and right over the property, granted the relief and when such averment is taken note of in the written statement and admission was given during the course of crossexamination, but specifically denied very right and possession of the plaintiff in the written statement. When such being the case, the Trial Court taken note of the said fact into consideration and the First Appellate Court also while considering the material on record, particularly admission on the part of D.W.1 extracted in paragraph No.16 that towards the western side of acquired land in Sy.No.75/4 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas belongs to the plaintiff i.e., suit schedule property. According to him, he is in possession of vacant site. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, defendants have suggested that defendant Nos.3 to 6 have already constructed house in

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:53520 RSA No. 870 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the allotted sites, but P.W.1 is giving contrary statement stating that he is in possession of the vacant site. D.W.1 also further admitted that plaintiff is growing Ragi, Corn and other crops in the suit schedule property measuring 2 acres 2 guntas and towards north to south, there is a road and towards eastern side, there is a site and western side, there is remaining land belonging to the plaintiff and his site comes in the land acquired by the Government and this admission was taken note of and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. When such being the case, when there was denial of right and also possession of the suit schedule property by the appellants and the very contention that the admission takes away the case of plaintiff cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law and with regard to interference is concerned, the trial Court has taken note of the same while answering issue Nos.2 and 4 and no perversity is found in the findings of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶47