Dismissed¶78

Sri Chandrashekar v. Vs Sri Udayakumar M S

Permanent injunction – possession – concurrent findings of fact

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026RSA/1425/2014

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — RSA No. 1425 of 2014 (INJ), decided 08.06.2026 by Justice Ashok S. Kinagi. Keywords: permanent injunction; possession and interference; ADLR/Court commissioner report; open space between properties; concurrent findings of fact; no substantial question of law; Section 100 CPC; Section 90 Indian Evidence Act (raised in counsel's submission only); Davangere courts; O.S.No.195/2008; R.A.No.71/2013. Outcome: appeal dismissed, decrees of courts below confirmed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the judgment and decree passed by the courts below were confirmed and no order as to costs was made; pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly. ¶78

Sri Chandrashekar v Vs Sri Udayakumar M S — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the judgment and decree passed by the courts below were confirmed and no order as to costs was made; pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly.

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgments of the courts below are erroneous or perverse and whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal. +1 more

¶71

Court's answer

There is no error in the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal; both courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments.

¶71

Ratio / Principle

The ADLR Court commissioner's report (appointed with the consent of both parties) confirmed the existence of open space between the properties and, together with the certificate of records issued by the ADLR, clearly revealed that the property belongs to the plaintiff, establishing the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property.

¶65

Key takeaways

Both courts below concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Permanent injunction — possession — concurrent findings of fact — no substantial question of law. The plaintiff claimed the B schedule property (a 59 ft x 3 ft passage on the southern side of his house constructed on 59 x 20 1/2 ft out of a total 59 x 24 ft) under a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2006. On 02.04.2008 the defendant began digging on the B schedule property to construct a compound wall and gate. The Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction with costs on 18.11.2013, and the first Appellate Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on 08.07.2014. During the suit, with the consent of both parties, an ADLR was appointed Court commissioner; his report stated there was no compound wall between the properties, confirming open space, and his certificate of records revealed the property belongs to the plaintiff. Both courts below concurrently found the plaintiff in possession and the defendant interfering. Held: no error in the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law arises; the Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC is dismissed, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1425 OF 2014 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR V S/O LATE C S VEERANNA AGED ABOTU 56 YEARS EMPLOYEE DOOR NO.721, 9^TH MAIN ROAD P J EXTENSION DAVANAGERE 577 002

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR Y H.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI UDAYAKUMAR M S S/O LATE SUBBARAYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BUSINESS NO.720/1 & 2, 9^TH MAIN ROAD P J EXTENSION DAVANAGERE 577 002

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. N M SHIVANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 8.7.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.71/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

JUDGE, DAVANGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.11.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.195/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANGERE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2014 passed in R.A.No.71/2013 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davangere, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.195/2008 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Davangere.

¶27

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and respondent was the plaintiff.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that the suit schedule property is a vacant space or passage in site No.25, Door No.720/1 and 720/2, measuring east-west 59 ft, and north-south 3 feet, situated at 5^th main, 9^th division, P.J extension, Davanagere.

¶33

It is contended that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property, having acquired the title under a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2006, and khata was changed to his name. It is contended that out of a total extent of 59X24 feet, a house was constructed in an area of 59X20 ½ feet, which is described as A schedule property. The remaining portion towards the southern side measuring 59X3 feet was described as the B schedule property. It is contended that the defendant claiming ownership of a property situated towards the southern side of the B schedule property having

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

measurement of 59X20 feet and stated that the defendant had constructed the building in the said site without leaving a setback towards its northern side.

¶37

On 02.04.2008, the defendant began digging on the B schedule property and on inquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was trying to construct the compound wall and gate. The defendant did not answer the questions posed by the plaintiff suitably and the police advised the plaintiff to approach a civil Court. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

¶38

The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that the sale deeds of the year 1958 and 1968 indicate the measurement of the site in dispute with the plaintiff as 54X20 feet and any claim more than that measurement is a false claim. The measurement mentioned in the sale deeds dated 30.03.1985, 17.01.2005 and

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

26.10.2006 are incorrect since the vendors had no right

¶42

or authority to sell more than an extent of 54X20 feet. The suit filed by the plaintiff on the strength of wrong measurement and concocted documents over a nonexistent B schedule property is sought to be dismissed.

¶43

The trial Court based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶44

The plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 39 documents as Exs.P1 to P39. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 and marked 8 documents as Exs.D1 to D8.

¶45

The trial Court after recording the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and decree for permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendant or anybody claiming on behalf of the defendant from putting up any sort of construction in the B schedule property i.e., towards

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

southern side of the suit schedule property permanently

¶49

vide judgment dated 18.11.2013.

¶50

The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.195/2008, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.71/2013, on the file of learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere.

¶51

The first Appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 08.07.2014 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.195/2008.

¶52

The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶53

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶54

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the

¶55

impugned judgment passed by the courts below are erroneous and perverse for not having appreciated the documentary evidence vide Ex-D1 to D5. The said

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

documents are 30 years old having presumptive value under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that there is a dispute in regard to measurement of the properties in question, which goes to the root of the matter. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the appeal.

¶59

Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶60

The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and marked 39 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P39 and examined one witness as PW2 to prove the possession over the suit property. In rebuttal, the defendant was examined as DW.1, he reiterated the written statement averments in the examinationin-chief.

¶61

During the pendency of the suit with the consent of both the parties, the trial Court appointed an ADLR as a

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Court commissioner to inspect the property of the plaintiff and defendant. The ADLR submitted a report and was examined as PW.2, wherein the Court commissioner has submitted a report stating that there

¶65

is no compound wall in between both the properties, confirming the existence of open space between the properties. Further, the certificate of records issued by ADLR to the extent of the said property clearly reveals that the property belongs to the plaintiff. Thus it serves as a material piece of evidence available on record, making it crystal clear the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is required to establish the possession over the suit schedule property and interference as on the date of instituting the suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the defendant himself has admitted the execution of a commissioner warrant and submission of report.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:27328 RSA No. 1425 of 2014

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Both the Courts below considering the commissioner

¶70

report has rightly held that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

¶71

Both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal.

¶72