IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2013 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

RUDRAPPA GOWDA, S/O.VEERABHADRAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.KOTE, VARKODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSANGARA TALUK-577418.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. R GOPAL A/W R.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANJAPPA, S/O.VEERAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SHEKHARAPPA, Digi tally signed by S/O.VEERAPPA GOWDA, PRAMILA G V AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Location:

HIGH COURT 3. OMAKESHA, OF S/O.VEERAPPA GOWDA, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. BANGARAPPA S/O.DEVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5. HALAPPA S/O.DEVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. KOTE, VARKODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK - 577418.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.SHETTY ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;

R1 AND R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.1.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.111/2006 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, HOSANAGAR AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents.

2. This Regular Second Appeal is arising from the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2010 in O.S.No.111/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Jn.Dn.) at Hosanagar and judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 in R.A.No.10/2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar.

3. The suit of the plaintiff was for bare injunction in respect of property bearing Survey No.66 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas and also in respect of a residential house bearing door No.37 located in M-Guddeoppa Grama Panchayath, Varakodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosanagara Taluk. The defendants raised the contention that there is a cart road in Survey No.66 and that road leads to their house and the garden land. 4. The Trial Court framed following three issues:

"(cid:2)(cid:3)ಾ(cid:5)ಾಂಶಗಳ(cid:10)

"1.

(cid:5)ಾ(cid:3)ಾ(cid:11)(cid:12)ಾಂಕದಂದು(cid:3)ಾ(cid:11)ಯು(cid:17)ಾನು(cid:5)ಾ(cid:3)ಾ(cid:19)ೆಡೂ(cid:23)(cid:24)ಸ(cid:26)(cid:27)ನ(cid:28)

?

(cid:29)ಾ(cid:26)(cid:30)ೕ(cid:12)ಾನುಭವದ"#(cid:5)ೆ$ಎಂದು(cid:3)ಾ(cid:11)ಯುರುಜು(cid:3)ಾತುಪ*ಸುವ(cid:12)ೆ

2.

ಪ+(cid:27)(cid:3)ಾ(cid:11)ಯರು(cid:3)ಾ(cid:11)ಯ(cid:29)ಾ(cid:26)(cid:30)ೕ(cid:12)ಾನುಭವ,ೆ-ಆತಂಕಪ*/ದರುಎಂದು

?

(cid:3)ಾ(cid:11)ಯುರುಜು(cid:3)ಾತುಪ*ಸುವ(cid:12)ೇ

3. ?

(cid:3)ಾ(cid:11)ಯು(cid:5)ಾ(cid:3)ೆಯ"#,ೋ0ದಪ01ಾರವನು2ಪ3ೆಯಲುಅಹ7(cid:12)ೇ

4. ?."

ಏನುಆ(cid:5)ೇಶಅಥ(cid:3)ಾ*:+

5. The suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court. The defendants filed an appeal and along with the appeal, they also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Appellate Court in terms of the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal in part and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are modified. However, I.A.No.V filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants is dismissed.

6. The operative portion of the order passed by the Appellate Court, which has modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court reads as under:

"Permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court does not affect in any way the possession of the defendants in the portion of the house in the suit land and also their right to use the way which proceeds to the house and also the way which proceeds to their lands from the house."

7. As can be noticed from the aforementioned decree passed by the First Appellate Court, it is evident that the First Appellate Court has recognized the right of the defendants in respect of the alleged cart road in the suit property to reach the house of the defendants and also the garden land of the defendants. However can be noticed, there is no mention about the wid