Dismissed¶¶75

Sri Mahalingappa v. B N Basavarajappa

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2025RSA/913/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 913 of 2014 (INJ); Justice Ashok S. Kinagi; decided 03-06-2025; NC: 2025:KHC:18772; second appeal under S.100 CPC; permanent injunction suit O.S.No.239/1998 (Civil Judge Jr.Dn., T. Narasipura) and R.A.No.16/2006 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T. Narasipura); boundaries prevail over extent; possession of 25x8 yards versus sale-deed extent 25x7 yards; no rectification deed; concurrent findings affirmed; no substantial question of law; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; appellant No.2 abated.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below confirmed; no order as to costs. (Appeal against Appellant No.2 already dismissed as abated v/o 04.12.2024.) ¶¶75

Sri Mahalingappa Vs B N Basavarajappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below confirmed; no order as to costs. (Appeal against Appellant No.2 already dismissed as abated v/o 04.12.2024.)

¶¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit site measuring 25x8 yards although the sale deed in favour of his father recorded an extent of 25x7 yards (boundaries versus extent). +2 more

¶¶60

Court's answer

On perusal of the boundaries, the plaintiff is in possession of the extent of 25x8 yards.

¶¶66

Ratio / Principle

Boundaries prevail over extent; both Courts below concurrently recorded the finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit site measuring 25x8 yards.

¶¶67

Key takeaways

In a suit for injunction, the Court is required to consider possession and interference.ratio¶¶67
The pleading in the written statement (regarding the steps constructed by the plaintiff) is sufficient to hold that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.ratio¶¶67
Both the Courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments; this Court finds no error in them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC by the defendants against the concurrent findings of the trial Court (O.S.No.239/1998, judgment dated 20.09.2006) and the first appellate Court (R.A.No.16/2006, judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014), whereby the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction over khata No.84/63 at Benakanahalli Village was decreed. Counsel for the defendants urged that the plaintiff claimed possession of 25x8 yards though his father's sale deed recorded 25x7 yards and no rectification deed was obtained. The Court held that boundaries prevail over extent, found on the boundaries that the plaintiff possessed 25x8 yards, reiterated that in an injunction suit the Court considers possession and interference, treated the written-statement plea (steps obstructing the defendant's bullock cart) as sufficient to establish interference with the plaintiff's peaceful possession, and held there was no error in the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law arose. Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of the Courts below confirmed; no order as to costs. The appeal stood dismissed against Appellant No.2 as abated v/o 04.12.2024.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2014 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MAHALINGAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶10

SRI.M. BASAVANNA

¶11

DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶12

2(A) SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

2(B) MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶15

2(C) PARVATHAMMA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶16

2(D) PRABHAVATHI @ CHIKKAMMANNI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶17

2(E) GURUMALLAMMANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶18

2(A) AND 2(B) ARE SONS AND 2(C) AND (E) ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE M. BASAVANNA

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SOSALE HOBLI TALUK, T.NARASIPURA, DIST MYSORE P.C.571124

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ARAVIND C DESAI, ADVOCATE V/O DATED 04.12.2024 APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST APPELLANT No.2 AS ABATED)

¶25

AND:

¶26

B.N. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 07.04.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., T. NARSIPURA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 20.09.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.239/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) T.NARASIPURA.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 passed in R.A.No.16/2006 by the learned Senior Civil

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.239/1998 dated 20.09.2006 by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) T. Narasipura.

¶38

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff.

¶39

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶40

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing over the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property bearing khata No.84/63 measuring 25x8 yards situated at Benakanahally Village and 2’ 26” in the middle, i.e., towards the Southern side running from the Eastern side to the Western side which belongs to the plaintiff and part and parcel of the suit schedule property. It is contended

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

that originally, it belonged to one Smt. Madamma. She sold the said property in favour of Veerappa under a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2022, who in turn sold the same to the father of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2025. After the demise of his father, the plaintiff constructed a residential-cum-silk rearing house and a cow shed in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff constructed a house having some vacant space as a passage. The plaintiff is using the passage to reach the backyard. The said passage divides the property of the plaintiff and defendant. The defendants started to demarcate the boundaries and encroach the passage. The defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendants did not give any heed to the requests made by plaintiff. Hence, the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The defendants filed a written statement

¶47

denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the plaintiff’s father had purchased the land measuring to the extent of 25x7 yards. There is no bar for the plaintiff or his father to get the rectification deed regarding the extent of the said site. It is contended that the plaintiff used to go to the backyard on the channel bund and several Parthenium plants were grown. It is contended that the plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to use his site which he had permitted. It is contended that the steps constructed by the plaintiff in front of his house was causing obstruction to the movement of the defendant’s bullock cart. Hence, defendant No.2 requested the plaintiff for the removal of one of the steps. Instead of doing so, the plaintiff filed a false suit against the defendants. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶48

The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the

¶49

parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The plaintiff, examined himself as PW-1 and

¶54

marked 16 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1, examined two other witnesses as DWs-2 and 3 and marked 16 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.16. The trial Court on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment dated 20.09.2006.

¶55

The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.239/1998 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.16/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T. Narasipura. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶57

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that plaintiff’s

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

father had purchased the site measuring 25x7 yards. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the 25x8 yards. The plaintiff also submits that neither the plaintiff nor his father, obtained a rectification deed regarding the measurement of the site. Hence, he submits that both the Courts below without considering the said aspect have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶61

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶62

There is no dispute that the plaintiff’s father had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2025. The plaintiff’s father while purchasing the suit schedule property the measurement of the said property was shown as 25x7 yards. The plaintiff has produced records to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit site measuring 25x8

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

yards. From the perusal of the boundaries, it discloses that

¶66

the plaintiff is in possession of the extent of 25x8 yards.

¶67

It is settled law that the boundaries will prevail over the extent as both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit site measuring 25x8 yards. In a suit for injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession and interference. Admittedly, both the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff has constructed steps in front of his house and it is causing a nuisance. The pleading in the written statement is sufficient to hold that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:18772 RSA No. 913 of 2014

¶69

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in

¶72

this appeal.

¶73