IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.304 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. K.V. BOJANATH, S/O K. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.K-8, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, SRIRAMAPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

2. SRI. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O K. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.7, MUNISWAMY ROAD, Digitally signed SHIVAJINAGAR, by DEVIKA M BENGALURU-560 051.

Location: H IGH …APPELLANTS COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. RUDRAMMA, W/O LATE NYANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT KENDATTI VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

…RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.140/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 (POCSO), KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.477/2011 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR.

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 for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and having peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants are trying to make road in the suit schedule property inspite of not having any rights over the same. It is specifically pleaded that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, she is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 appeared and filed the written statement denying the very title of the plaintiff and also denied the averments made in the plaint. The defendants took the contention that land bearing Sy.No.14/1 originally belongs to one Chikka Bychappa S/o Muniyappa and on 09.04.1958, the said Chikka Bychappa sold the suit schedule property in favour of Eshwarachari under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. Again the said Eshwarachari has purchased Sy.No.14/3A measuring 31 guntas under a registered sale deed. On 07.10.2006, the said Eshwarachari sold the property to Shashidharachari under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. The land bearing Sy.No.14/1 was sub-divided and re-numbered as Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/7 and 14/8 as per the order dated 08.10.2010. The defendants further contended that on 20.06.2011, the said Shashidharachari sold the property bearing Sy.No.14/7 measuring 30.12 guntas in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. After purchase of the said property, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they have put up the compound and dug the borewell in Sy.No.14/7.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, taken note of the area claimed by the plaintiff in paragraph No.25 with regard to Sy.No.14/1 and southern boundary is shown as Puttachari, whereas the northern boundary in Sy.No.14/1 is shown as property belonging to Nyanappa, the husband of the plaintiff. On perusal of the description, it is clear that the boundary with respect to Sy.No.14/6 on the southern side is mis-described. In paragraph No.26, the evidence of D.W.1 was taken note of and the defendants claim right based on the document Ex.D.17. On perusal of Ex.D.17, it can be seen that on the northern boundary, the property belonging to the plaintiff is situated. Further, during the cour