Back
HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
IN RSA No. 753/2021 BETWEEN:
11. SMT.MUNIYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 8 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD
22. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VALAGAMADI NATAYANAPPA Digitally AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS signed by MALATESH
33. SRI VENKATESHAPPA K C S/O LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA Location:
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 4. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114 HC-KAR
5. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
5(A). PRADEEP KUMAR M, S/O MANJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
5(B). MANASA M D/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
5(C). CHETHAN KUMAR M S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS APPELLANTS NO. 5(A) TO 5(C)
ARE RESIDENTS OF AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
6. SMT. SEERANJAMMA D/O LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT DODDA ANKANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK - 563 122
7. SMT. MENASAMMA D/O LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT PARASHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK - 563 114
8. KUM. CHOWDAMMA D/O LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE HC-KAR KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
…APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA V.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K, ADVOCATE;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.09.2022, A2 TO A8 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED A1)
AND:
1. SRI. B. M. MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(A). SMT. PILLAMMA W/O LATE SRI. B.M. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 1(B). B.M. AMBARISH S/O LATE SRI. B.M. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
1(C). SUREH B.M S/O LATE SRI. B.M. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
1(D). SMT. MEENA W/O CHANDRAPPA D/O LATE SRI. B.M. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT 1ST CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR BANGARPET POST, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
1(E). MANJUNATH B.M S/O LATE SRI. B.M. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HC-KAR RESPONDENTS NO.1(A) TO 1(C) AND 1(E)
ARE R/AT AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.171/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F) PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.23/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET. IN RSA NO. 370/2023 BETWEEN:
B. M. MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS., 1. SMT. PILLAMMA D/O. LATE SRI. B. M. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. M. AMBARISH S/O. LATE SRI. B. M. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SURESHA. M S/O. LATE SRI. B. M. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
HC-KAR
44. SMT. MEENA W/O. CHANDRAPPA, D/O. LATE SRI. B. M. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, BANGARPET POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
55. MANJUNATH. M S/O. LATE SRI. B. M. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE VAAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA AGED 79 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 8 ALREADY ON RECORD
2. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VALAGAMADI NATAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HC-KAR
4. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDNETS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114
5. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA D/O. LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA, W/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, 5(A). PRADEEP KUMAR M S/O MUNIRAJU AGED 19 YEARS
5(B). MANASA M D/O MUNIRAJU AGED 20 YEARS
5(C). CHETHAN KUMAR M S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT.
66. SMT. SEERANJAMMA D/O. LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA, W/O. MURALI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HC-KAR RESIDING DODDA ANKADALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 164.
77. SMT. MENASAMMA D/O. LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA, W/O. RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARASHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
88. KUM. CHOWDAMMA D/O. LATE VALAGAMADI NARAYANAPPA, W/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT AITHANDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA V.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2025, R2 TO R8 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.154/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF), ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2016 PASSED IN OS No.23/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Rakshitha V. N., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for respondents.
2. RSA No.753/2021 is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.23/2005 which was confirmed in RA No.171/2016 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed in part reversing the judgment of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit in entirety and granting declaration and consequential relief in respect of suit schedule ‘B’ property which is a portion of suit schedule ‘A’ property; whereas the appeal in RSA No.370/2023 is filed by the defendant challenging the dismissal of the counter claim in respect of suit schedule ‘C’ property.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under:
3.1. A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed O.S.No.23/2005 at the inception which was later on converted into declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties):
A schedule All the part and parcel of the landed property bearing Sy.No.206, measuring 4 acres 30 guntas including 20 guntas karab situated at Ithandahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk which is bounded on east Shoukath Khan, west – Valagamadi Muniyappa, north – Abbani Muniyappa, karab land and B. Munivenkatappa and south –Krishnappa’s land.
B schedule Out of A schedule an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas including karab land of 10 guntas situated Ithandahalli village, bounded on east – Shoukath Khan, west – Valagamadi Muniyappa, in Sy.No.202, north –C-schedule property and south –Krishnappa’s land.
C schedule Out of A schedule an extent of 2 acres situated at Ithandahalli village, bounded on east Bashu Sab and Shoukath Khan, west – Valagamadi Muniyappa in Sy.No.202, north – Abbani Muniyappa’s property and south – B schedule land.
Counter claim schedule property
All the piece and parcel of landed property measuring 2-00 acres comprised in Sy.No.173/P9 and 206 sitauted at Ithandahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Bangarpet Taluk and same is bounded on east – Valagamadi Narayanappa, north – Abbini Muniyappa, south – Valagamadhi Narayanappa and Halla.”
3.2. Plaintiff laid the claim against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule properties by contending that plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession of the property bearing Sy.No.206 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas including the 10 acres of kharab land of Ithandahalli village, Bangarpet Taluk.
3.3. According to the plaintiff, suit property earlier belonged to Sabu Sabi @ Sabjansab and his wife and their children and they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Plaintiff having purchased the suit properties from Sabu Sabi @ Sabjansab, his wife and children under the registered sale deed dated 14.08.2002 for a valuable consideration was put into the possession of the suit property and thereafter, revenue entries were mutated in the name of the plaintiff and thereafter, plaintiff enjoyed the suit property as an absolute owner.
3.4. It is further contention of the plaintiff that defendant without having any right, title or interest much less possession over the suit property, in the last week of January, 2005, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff had to file the suit.
3.5. During the pendency of the suit, plaint got amended and as per the amended pleadings, it is contended that in May, 2006 defendant illegally encroached into portion of the ‘A’ schedule property to the extent of two acres of the land claiming that land bearing Sy.No.173 is the defendant’s land and he is the owner of the said land and forcibly encroached two acres of the land in ‘A’ schedule property which is specifically mentioned in ‘C’ schedule property to the plaint.
3.6. Plaintiff further contended that possession of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
