Dismissed¶49

Sri Nagappa N G v. Secretary

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026WP/13148/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appointment of Court Commissioner; Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC; local investigation; boundary survey; suit for permanent injunction; proof of lawful possession by registered sale deed; encroachment of Gram Panchayat land earmarked as road; specific plea of incorrect boundaries; Article 227 writ petition against interlocutory order of Trial Court; guidelines for appointment of Court Commissioner; Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs. Kum. Vijayalaxmi, W.P.No.201274/2022; Karnataka High Court, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Although a plaintiff in a suit for injunction is required to prove lawful possession based on the registered sale deed, it cannot be ignored that respondent No.1 took the specific plea before the Trial Court that the plaintiff has shown the boundaries incorrectly and is squatting over the property of the Gram Panchayat. ¶43

Sri Nagappa N G Vs Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the defendants' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner in the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, and whether the impugned order dated 07.07.2021 should be set aside. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

Keeping in mind the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs. Kum. Vijayalaxmi (W.P.No.201274/2022), which laid down guidelines on appointment of a Court Commissioner and held that such appointment would aid the Trial Court in deciding the dispute correctly, the Trial Court is justified in allowing the application.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

¶43

Key takeaways

For complete adjudication of the dispute, the Trial Court is required to find out the actual boundaries of the suit schedule property and the alleged possession of the plaintiff, as the defendants are seriously disputing the same; hence the appointment of the Court Commissioner is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute and to grant or not to grant the relief to the plaintiff.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), by oral order dated 18.03.2026 in Writ Petition No. 13148 of 2021 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, rejected the petition challenging the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Soraba in O.S.No.160/2013, whereby the defendants' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of a Court Commissioner (to conduct a survey and ascertain the boundaries of the suit schedule property and the alleged encroachment of Gram Panchayat road land) was allowed. Held: while a plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction must prove lawful possession based on the registered sale deed, where the defendant takes the specific plea that the plaintiff has shown the boundaries incorrectly and is squatting over Gram Panchayat property, the Trial Court is required to find out the actual boundaries of the suit schedule property and the alleged possession of the plaintiff; the appointment of a Court Commissioner is therefore necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute and to grant or refuse the injunction relief. Reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs. Kum. Vijayalaxmi, W.P.No.201274/2022, laying down guidelines on appointment of Court Commissioners. The petitioner (aged 78, acting through GPA holder Sri Basavaraj N.G.) was represented by Sri. Thilak Vignesh A.; respondents were served but unrepresented.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15878 WP No. 13148 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 13148 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI NAGAPPA N. G. S/O N G BASAVANYAPPA GONDI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT KOTIPURA VILLAGE ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK SHIMOGA - 577 413

¶10

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI BASAVARAJ N.G. SON OF N.G .BASAVANYAPPA GONDI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT KOTIPURA VILLAGE ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK SHIMOGA - 577 413

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. THILAK VIGNESH A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATH V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

SECRETARY

¶16

GRAM PANCHAYATH KUBATURU, ANAVATTI HOBLI SORABA TALUK SHIMOGA - 577 413

¶17

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15878 WP No. 13148 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

TALUK PANCHAYATH SORABA TALUK SHIMOGA - 577 413

¶21

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT

¶22

SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.07.2021 VIDE ANENXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SORABA AT SHIMOGA IN O.S.NO.160/2013, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.07.2021 passed in O.S.No.160/2013 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Soraba (for short, 'Trial Court') on an application filed by the defendants for an appointment of a Court Commissioner.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15878 WP No. 13148 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Sri. Thilak Vignesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for an injunction against the respondents/defendants as the defendants/Gram Panchayath illegally intend to form a road in the property owned by the petitioner/plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff has adduced the evidence in the suit at that stage the defendant No.1 has filed an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a survey and look at the boundary of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. However, the trial Court erroneously allowed the application. It is submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner is for the relief of injunction. The petitioner is required to prove his lawful possession and filing of such application by respondent No.1 and entertaining the same would not arise. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.

¶33

Notice of this petition is served on the respondents,

¶34

they remained absent.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:15878 WP No. 13148 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material on record.

¶39

The records indicate that if the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.160/2013 for relief of a permanent injunction against the respondents, in the said suit, the contesting respondents have filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Respondent No.1 has specifically raised the defence that the plaintiff has encroached 25 feet of the land belonging to the gram panchayat and has put up the fence. After the commencement of the trial, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner. The application filed by respondent No.1 is accompanied by an affidavit and the said affidavit indicates that the plaintiff, with a malafide intention to encroach on the property by showing wrong boundaries and wrongly showing the extent of the property, made an attempt to encroach upon the aforesaid property and it is necessary to find out the actual extent of the suit schedule property with regard to the boundaries and it is required to be found out whether the

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15878 WP No. 13148 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

plaintiff has encroached on the Gram Panchayat property to the extent of 20 feet of vacant land, which was earmarked as a road for the general public. The trial Court considering the same and the stand of the gram panchayat, allowed the application.

¶43

It is noticed that the petitioner who has filed a suit for injunction is required to prove his lawful possession based on the registered sale deed. However, it cannot be ignored that respondent No.1 has taken specific plea before the Trial Court that the plaintiff has shown the boundaries incorrectly and is squatting over the property of the Gram Panchayat.

¶44

In my considered view, for the complete

¶45

adjudication of the dispute, the trial Court is required to find out the actual boundaries of the suit schedule property and the alleged possession of the plaintiff, as the defendants are seriously disputing the same. Hence, the appointment of the Court Commissioner is necessary for complete adjudication of dispute and to grant or not to grant the relief to the plaintiff. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs. Kum. Vijayalaxmi reported in

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15878 WP No. 13148 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

W.P.No.201274/2022 , has laid down the guidelines with regard to the appointment of Court Commissioner and further held that the appointment of the Court Commissioner would aid the Trial Court in deciding the dispute correctly. Keeping in mind the decision of this Court, I am of the view that the Trial Court is justified in allowing the application.

¶49

Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.

¶50

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶51

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Nagappa N G v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagappa N G v. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Vs Chandan

Sri Ramappa Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Smt Dhanavanthi Vs Mr Joseph Antony Moras

Ravi G.K. Vs Smt.Parameshwari Amma

Smt. Chitthamma Vs Thammanna

Sri. Syed Aslam Vs Sri. M S Dinesh