- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23792 RSA No. 30 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.30 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: GOVINDEGOWDA, S/O. KALEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE GOVINDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 2. SRI VENKATESH, S/O. LATE GOVINDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 3. SRI K.G. MADHU, S/O. LATE GOVINDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 4. SWAMYGOWDA, S/O. PAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. VENKATESH, S/O. PAPEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS. 5. SANNATHAYAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 6. SATHISH K. V. S/O. LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23792 RSA No. 30 of 2024 7. GIRISH K.V., S/O. LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 8. SRI. PUTTEGOWDA, S/O PAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT KAMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 455. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.N. MAHADEVAPPA, S/O. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 2. BASAVARALINGAPPA, S/O. MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KAMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 455. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.5001 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23792 RSA No. 30 of 2024 MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATTANA)., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.93/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This matter is listed for admission and second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court. Both the courts came to the conclusion that the defendants have encroached a portion of the property of the plaintiff / respondent in Sy.No.8 that is 'B' schedule property, which is part of the 'A' schedule property and even Commissioner was also appointed who has also identified the property that there was encroachment made by the appellants herein to the extent of 2 3/4 gunta of land. The appellate court also confirmed the same having re-assessed the material on record particularly in para 36 and para 37 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23792 RSA No. 30 of 2024 judgment and on re-appreciation has come to a definite conclusion that there was an encroachment and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that there was a issue regarding limitation and trial court has considered the same in issue No.4 and answered the same considering the material on record. The appellate court on re-appreciation of the material available on record formulated points for its consideration. Whether the court commissioner finding that there was an encroachment by defendant Nos.1 to 4, 2 3/4 guntas of kharab land measuring 9 guntas in the boundary shown in A schedule property and also Whether defendants have established that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of A schedule properties more than the statutory period of limitation. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and formulated the points wherein also issue of limitation is considered whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the same is answered as negative and both the courts touched upon the issue of limitation also. The other contention of learned counsel for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23792 RSA No. 30 of 2024 appellant is that they have perfected the title by way of adverse possession, which has been pleaded in the written statement and issue was also framed and material was also considered and particularly when the commissioner was appointed he inspected the property and given the report that there is an encroachment to the extent of 2 3/4 guntas of land and when such finding is given by both the courts having considered the material on record, I do not find any error in the order of the trial court as well as the Appellate court on re- appreciation of question of fact and question of law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend in this second appeal both the courts have not taken note of the sale deed and boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and the fact that in the sale deed of the appellant no survey number is mentioned but counsel would submit that boundaries will prevail and with regard to the very said contention also the court has taken note of the very report filed by the commissioner and comes to a definite conclusion that the appellant encroached upon the property of the plaintiff and hence, the very contention that Ex.D2 sale deed is not considered cannot be accepted. Having considered the grounds - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23792 RSA No. 30 of 2024 urged in the appeal, I do not find any grounds to admit the appeal and frame any substantial questions of law. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39