IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5759 OF 2010 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SUDHINDRACHARYA S/O. HANUMANTACHARYA DIGGAVI URF KAMPLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1A. SMT. GEETABAI W/O. SUDHINDRACHARYA KAMPLI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAYARMATH, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580007.

1B. SMT. VANI W/O. SUDHEENDRA HUILGOL, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT R/O. RAYARMATH, MALAMADDI, NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.11.29 DHARWAD-580007.

09:58:46 +0530

1C. SMT. SANGEETA W/O. JAYASIMHA D AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAYARMATH, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580007.

1D. SMT. NAINA W/O. ANAND KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAYARMATH, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580007.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SAGAR S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER, HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.122/2010, DATED 15.07.2010, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DHARWAD AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.344/2002 DATED 19.02.2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE COURT (JR. DN.) & PRL. J.M.F.C., COURT, DHARWAD BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.344/2002 before the Trial Court, who succeeded in getting a permanent injunction against the defendant- corporation from demolishing or damaging the compound wall, which was put surrounding his property. The said judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.344/2002 dated 19.02.2005 was questioned before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.122/2010. By impugned judgment dated 15.07.2010, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is the said judgment of the First Appellate Court, which is assailed in the present second appeal.

3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is that the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the property bearing CTS No.301/II-2B/3 and the property in dispute is the compound wall of the length of 100 ft. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of CTS No.301/II-2B/3 of Dharwad and it was purchased by him under a sale deed dated 19.05.1960. Later, it was subdivided amongst the brothers. The plaintiff contended that he has constructed a compound wall with due permission of the defendant-corporation and has also obtained a completion certificate.

4. The issuance of the completion certificate is disputed by the defendant-corporation. It was contented that there were some bunk shops, which were put adjoining the compound wall, which was opposed by the plaintiff and he had filed a suit in O.S.No.329/2002, which came to be decreed. Later, the defendant-corporation intended to demolish the compound wall constructed by the plaintiff without issuing any notice to the plaintiff and therefore, he was constrained to approach the Trial Court seeking an injunction. The plaintiff had sought the following prayer in the suit:

Prayer “The Plaintiffs most humbly prays as under:-

a. An order of permanent injunction please be granted restraining the Defendant or anybody on its behalf from demolishing by damaging the suit compound wall.

b. Cost of the proceedings be awarded.

c. Any other appropriate relief that, this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case be awarded.

Hence, a decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, in the ends of justice and equity.”

5. On issuance of notice, the defendant-corporation