Govindappa Vs Smt. Kanthamma

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOVINDAPPA, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A KOTHANUR VILLAGE, KUPPAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 103.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. CHETHAN A.C., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SMT.KANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE, KUPPAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, Digitally signed by R NANDI HOBLI, MANJUNATHA CHIKKBALLAPUR TALUK Location: AND DISTRICT – 562 103. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MURALIDHARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…RESPONDENT ***

¶13

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.115/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.569/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKKABALLAPUR.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri A.C. Chethan, learned counsel for the

¶21

appellant and Sri. Muralidhar P., for the respondent.

¶22

The defendant is the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree of injunction passed in O.S. No.569/2011, confirmed in R.A.No.115/2019.

¶23

Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶24

A suit for bare injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff, contending that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties which are mentioned in 'A' Schedule and 'B'

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Schedule, separately, are culled out hereunder for ready

¶29

reference:

¶30

'A' SCHEDULE

¶31

Property bearing H.L.No.143, measuring East-West 60 feet, North-South 40 feet, situated at Kothanur village, Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath, nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and bounded on the:

¶32

East by :Road West by :Road North by :Plaintiff's property South by :K. Bachappa's vacant Site and house

¶33

'B' SCHEDULE

¶34

The road measures 10 feet in width and which leads from North to South, which is developed by the Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath, Chickballapur Taluk situated at Kothanur village, Nandi Hobli, Taluk and bounded as follows:

¶35

East by : Plaintiff's 'A' schedule property West by : Defendant's property North by : Road South by : Road

¶36

It is her case that she got the suit properties by way

¶37

of a registered Gift Deed dated 26.11.2010 executed by

¶38

Smt. Venkatamma. It is her further case that based on the registered Gift Deed, Kuppahalli Grama Panchayat has issued House list number in favour of the plaintiff and after

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

obtaining necessary licence, a house has been constructed in 'A' Schedule property.

¶42

It is her specific case that after the 'A' Schedule property, there exists a Road measuring 10 feet from North to South of the suit property which is referred as 'B' Schedule property. The said Road is belonging to Panchayat measuring 10 feet which is developed by the Panchayat by pitching stone slabs and it is the only Road available for the plaintiff for her ingress and egress.

¶43

It is also her specific case that the defendant, without there being any right, title or interest, has closed the Road by fixing the stone slabs and also tethering the cattle in the middle of the Road which was questioned by the plaintiff by complaining to the Secretary of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayat on 04.11.2011. The Secretary of the said Grama Panchayat, though visited the spot and carried out the inspection and drawn the Mahazar, could not stop the illegal interference by the defendant for the use of 'B'

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Schedule property, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

¶47

On receipt of suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed Written Statement, stating that there is no existence of Road at all in between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant and only with an intention to grab the property of the defendant, a false claim has been laid by the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of suit.

¶48

Said suit, after contest, came to be decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.115/2019.

¶49

The learned Judge in the first appellate Court, after securing the records and after appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the matter, especially in the light of the admission of the defendant with regard to the veracity of Exhibit P-6 document, dismissed the appeal of

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the defendant and confirmed the order of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the 'B' Schedule property.

¶53

Being further aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present appeal on following

¶54

grounds:

¶55

GROUNDS

¶56

It is submitted that the courts below failed to consider the implication after seeing the boundaries in Ex D1 and Ex D5. The western boundary in Ex D1 which is the sale deed of the plaintiff is the defendants property and the eastern boundary of Ex D5 which is the defendants sale deed is the plaintiffs property. Therefore there is no road in between the plaintiff and defendants property and the first time a road is mentioned is in Ex P2 Gift deed by which the plaintiffs mother in law gifted the suit schedule A property to the plaintiff. Therefore the courts below ought to have held that the gift deed was executed by the plaintiffs mother in law in the plaintiffs favour only to play mischief and create a basis for filing the suit.

¶57

It is submitted that the courts below failed to notice that the plaintiff has not produced any record to show when the land was acquired for formation of road and when the road was formed. The trial court is not correct in holding that since house list numbers are given boundaries will change. The trial court failed to notice that a road

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

cannot be created automatically when the house list numbers are given.

¶62

It is submitted that the Panchayat has not been made a party to the suit nor has any panchayat official been examined. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is a road it is the duty of the panchayat to maintain the road if any and keep it clear from obstructions. Therefore the plaintiff has no legal right to file an injunction suit against the defendant and the issue if any is between the panchayat and the defendant.

¶63

It is submitted that the courts below failed to notice that Ex P6 is a document that has come into existence after filing of the suit. The panchayat authorities have no power under law to prepare layout plans and the said document is only created to help the plaintiff in the suit and it reveals the collusion between the panchayat officials and the plaintiff.

¶64

It is submitted that the lower appellate court erred in casting doubts on Ex D1 and D6 when it is clear that the plaintiff is the eastern neighbour to the defendant and the defendant is the western neighbour to the plaintiff. The lower appellate court assumed the existence of a road and failed to consider the case of the defendant.

¶65

In the appeal, following substantial questions of

¶66

law are also raised:

¶67

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

¶68

Whether panchayat authorities have the power under law to create layout plans?

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Whether the panchayat can create a road without acquisition proceedings only because house list numbers are given?

¶73

Whether a new registered document pertaining to the same property should maintain the same schedule as the previous document or can the schedule be changed?

¶74

Whether a property owner next to a road can maintain an injunction suit over the road without making the local body as a party to the suit?

¶75

Whether permanent injunction decree can be granted when the property is not identifiable?

¶76

Sri. Chethan A.C., learned counsel for the

¶77

appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that the title deed relied upon by the plaintiff does not make out a case that there existed a Road on the Northern side of her property. The defendant got the title in respect of the suit property at a Partition from his brother wherein also, the existence of a Road is not shown. Therefore, the existence of the Road, as claimed by the plaintiff, is not shown and therefore, sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri. P. Muralidhara supports the impugned judgments.

¶82

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. On such perusal, pertinently, the suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction in respect of existence of Panchayat Road to the extent of 10 feet running North to South.

¶83

'A' Schedule property is in the ownership of the plaintiff having purchased the site from her vendor. There

¶84

is no dispute with regard to the 'A' Schedule property. However, the defendant has taken a specific defence that no road is in existence as is claimed by the plaintiff vide 'B' Schedule to the suit property.

¶85

It is also pertinent to note that before filing the suit, the plaintiff had approached the Secretary, Kuppahalli

¶86

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Grama Panchayat, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and District. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat visited the 'B' Schedule property and after carrying out the inspection, has drawn a mahazar, which clearly shows existence of road belonging to Panchayat.

¶89

No doubt, at an undisputed point of time, when the lands were agricultural lands, the boundaries that were shown in the title deeds of the respective parties are not the same boundaries as they exist as on date of suit.

¶90

In other words, the neighbouring land holder of the defendant has converted his land for non-agricultural purposes and has converted into residential sites. While so converting the land to the non-agricultural use, the land owner has adhered to the rules and regulations for conversion and has left space of 10 feet Road NorthSouth. The same is confirmed by the Panchayat when mahazar was drawn.

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:30948 RSA No. 917 of 2022

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

It is the defendant who has taken a specific stand that his property which he acquired through his brother at a Partition Deed includes the space left behind by the neighbouring land owner which is used as the Road.

¶95

If any such right is available for the defendant, it

¶96

is for the defendant to work out his remedy in accordance with law by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶97

In the absence of any such proceedings initiated by the defendant, when the plaintiff is successful in establishing that she is using the 'B' Schedule property for her ingress and egress to her house, the order of grant of permanent injunction by the learned Trial Judge, confirmed by the first appellate Court, needs no interference by this Court by admitting the appeal on the substantial questions of law raised above for further consideration.

¶98