Karnataka High Court
Sri Gangadhara Reddy vs Sri G Ramakrishnappa on 20 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21453
RSA No. 1787 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1787 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GANGADHARA REDDY
S/O LATE PILLARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2. SRI GAJENDRA
S/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
3. SRI PAVAN
S/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 4. SMT. PADMA
COURT OF W/O GANGADHARA REDDY,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ALL APPELLANTS R/AT IDRAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT 561209
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VISHWANATH R HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21453
RSA No. 1787 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI G RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
2. SRI G RAMACHANDRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
(A) SMT. GOPAMMA,
W/O LATE G RAMACHANDRAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED
(B) SRJ R GANGADHARA,
S/O LATE G RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
(C) SRI R MUDDUKRISHNA
S/O LATE G RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2(A) TO (C) R/AT IDRAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561209
(D) SMT. NAGAMANI
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA,
D/O LATE G RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT HALEGUDIBANDE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561209
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2021
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21453
RSA No. 1787 of 2021
HC-KAR
PASSED IN R.A.No.203/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE (ITINERARY COURT) GUDIBANDE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and both the Courts have comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and granted the relief of permanent injunction and hence, this second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property belongs to them and they are the absolute owners and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit -4- NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR schedule property which was acquired under inheritance and katha of the suit schedule property is also standing in their names. It is contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule property by putting haystack, manure pit and tethering cattle includes dumping size stones for fencing around the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the defendants have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and they are totally strangers to suit schedule property and unnecessarily interfering and trying to disposes them from their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in the first week of January, 2014 and the plaintiffs resisted their acts but it went vain. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the defendants and other five members of their family are enjoying the property since their ancestors. It is an ancestral property of themselves and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR plaintiffs in totally seven family members. They also constructed cow shed and putting haystack in the property to an extent of east to west 30 feet and north to south 50 feet out of total measurement of east to west 82 feet and north to south 50 feet in the suit schedule property and it is not the exclusive property of plaintiffs alone. Moreover, towards western side, there is a vacant site and nobody is in the possession of the same. Towards eastern side of the suit schedule property, the brother of plaintiffs Laxminarayanappa, his wife Sonnamma and their children Aswathappa and Venkatanarayanareddy were constructed house. The total property is enjoyed by themselves and other four members of the family in house list property. Therefore, the question of interfering does not arise. The plaintiffs did not made Laxminarayanappa's wife and children as parties. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint as well as written statement, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their -6- NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and one witness as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D11. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The Trial Court taken note of evidence of PW1 wherein he categorically deposed that the suit schedule property belongs to him and his brothers and also produced house list documents and tax paid receipt to show that the property belongs to them through their father and claims that suit schedule property is totally measuring east to west 82 feet and north to south 52 feet and to the extent of 15 x 20 feet, shed has been constructed and also given description of the property.
6. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of the PW1 in the cross-examination that defendants admits that house list and tax paid receipts -7- NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR stands in the names of the plaintiffs which was acquired from father and constructed a shed to an extent of 15 x 20 feet out of total extent of suit schedule property and also taken the contention of the defendants that suit schedule property is the ancestral property of themselves and plaintiffs. The Trial Court observed that PW1 categorically denied that they are not the relatives and also taken note of cross-examination made in respect of possession is concerned. PW1 also relied upon Ex.P4 and P5 - photograph and CD which clearly seen that the plaintiffs are standing in suit schedule property and further they putting haystack in the suit schedule property. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence on the part of PW2 wherein he deposed that same belongs to the plaintiffs who is his brothers.
7. The Trial Court taken note of cross-examination of DW1 wherein he deposed that when the defendants have confronted the documents of PW1 and comes to the conclusion that photographs at Ex.D3 to D8 are not -8- NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR enough to show that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. DW1 also relied upon the documents at Ex.D10 - tax paid receipt and Ex.D11 - house list extracts stands in the name of plaintiffs and Ex.D9 - sale deed pertains to Sy.No.1/5 not relates to present suit. The Trial Court having considered the answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 though he admits with regard to the photographs at Ex.D3 to D8 comes to the conclusion that based on those photographs, cannot comes to a conclusion that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is preferred in R.A.No. 203/2018. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also reassessing both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and it does -9- NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR not require interference. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and in paragraph 14 an observation is made that if the defendants have right or possession over the suit schedule property, why they have not included the same in the partition document. There is no explanation by the defendants/appellants on this aspect. Except photographs, no convincing documentary evidence are being produced by the appellants to show that in portion of the suit schedule property measuring 30 x 50 feet, they have constructed a cow shed. Without there being convincing documentary evidence, the contention of the defendants cannot be accepted and also taken note of photographs which have been produced by the plaintiffs and also taken note of Ex.P1 and P2 which clearly stands in the name of the plaintiffs and held that documentary evidence is clear that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and also taken note of the documents at Ex.D9 to D11 produced by the defendants
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR and the said documents also stands in the name of the plaintiffs only. Hence, confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The counsel for the appellants mainly relies upon the documents at Ex.D3 to D8 photographs and contend that there is a clear admission on the part of PW1 and PW2 that the defendant tied the cows in the suit schedule property and milching. It clearly shows exclusive possession over the suit schedule property by the defendants. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is an admission with regard to the haystack of the defendant in the suit schedule property and same is admitted by PW2 and these admissions were not taken note of by both the Courts. Hence, this Court has to frame the substantive questions of law that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the admitted evidence of PW1 regarding possession of the defendants/appellants in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR respect of the cow shed existing on a portion of a suit schedule property and dumping of haystack in another portion of the suit schedule property by the defendants and both the Courts have made improper appreciation of documentary evidence and admission were not taken note of by both the Courts.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and the very case of the defendants in the written statement that the suit schedule property belongs to their ancestors. It is the case of the plaintiffs that suit property devolves on them. In order to prove the factum of possession, the plaintiffs relied upon the documents at Ex.P1 and P2 and same are not disputed by the defendants. But defendants only got elicited the answer in the cross-examination of PW1 that in the said document, totally, other five names are found and same is admitted. But it is not the case of the defendants that other names
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR are found in the documents are belongs to them and same is also taken note of by both the Courts. Apart from that in the cross-examination of DW1, he categorically admits that when both of them have partitioned the suit schedule property, suit schedule property was not included in the partition between the brothers and same also taken note of by both Courts. If really the property belongs to ancestors of the defendants, while partitioning the property, they would have included the same but nothing on record in this regard. The main contention of the appellants' counsel that there is a clear admission on the part of PW1 regarding possession is concerned. Except relying upon documents at Ex.D3 to D8, the defendants have not placed any other documents to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. PW1 also in his cross-examination has given an explanation that they have produced the photographs showing tying of the cows in the land of the plaintiffs and milching. When such explanation is given by the plaintiffs and documents also
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR stands in the name of the plaintiffs with regard to the possession is concerned, the very contention of the appellants' counsel that there is an admission but there is no admission with regard to the construction of cow shed and except the photographs at Ex.D3 to D8, the defendants have not produced any documents and both the Courts have take note of the said fact into consideration and also taken note of admission on the part of DW1. When documentary evidence clearly discloses that the property stands in the name of the plaintiffs in terms of Ex.P1 and P2 and documentary evidence excludes the oral evidence of defendants, hence, both the Courts have appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and there is no perversity in the finding of both the Courts. Unless there is any perversity in the findings of both the Courts, the question of admitting the appeal by framing the substantive questions of law does not arise. Thus, there is no ground to admit the appeal and to frame the substantive questions of law.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21453 RSA No. 1787 of 2021 HC-KAR
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN