- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.138 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. B. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA NO.6, 4TH MAIN ROAD KALYANAGARA MUDALPALLYA BENGALURU-560 072. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHEELA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS D/O LATE L.T. KORAGAPPA AGRICULTURIST RAVATHANAKERE BASRURU VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 211. 2. JAYANTHI BHASKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS D/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA NOW RESIDING AT NO.99 NEW NO.19, 3RD MAIN ROAD SANJEEVINI NAGAR MOODLAPALYA BENGALURU-560 072. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 3. SMT. B. VIMALA (DEAD) D/O LATE K.T.KORAGAPPA SAROJINI KESHAV AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O LATE B. VIMALA SHREENIKETHANA MANIPURA VILLAGE AND POST UDUPI TALUK-576 120. 4. T. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE B. VIMALA SRI KRISHNA STORES KEMMANNU VILLAGE AND POST UDUPI TALUK-576 115. 5. SHARADA SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS D/O LATE B. VIMALA MAIN ROAD HERURU VILLAGE AND POST BRAHMAVARA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 213. 6. SHYAMALA SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE B. VIMALA SRI KRISHNA COFFEE SUPPLIERS OLD POST OFFICE ROAD HUNSOOR POST MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105. 7. SRIPATHI RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE B. VIMALA NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD UPPOOR, K.G.ROAD BRAHMAVARA TALUK-576 105. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 8. SRIKANTH RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE B. VIMALA NEAR OLD CITY HOSPITAL UDUPI TOWN UDUPI-576 101. 9. POORNIMA R. RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE B. VIMALA SRINIDHI ENTERPRISES DODDABOMMASANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097. 10. SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA (DEAD) D/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA. RAMA DEVI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O LATE B.N. RAMESH 11. ROSHANI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 12. ARJUN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.11 AND 12 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE B.N. RAMESH. RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 12 ARE R/O GANESH CYCLE STORES MAIN ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND POST: HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527. 13. B.N. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA MOHAN CYCLE STORES - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 BEHIND HOTEL ASHOK SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 14. B.N. MOHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA PRAGATHI FORM HOUSE OLD SIGEBAGI ROAD POST: BADRA COLONY BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. 15. B.N. VASUDEVA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA WARD NO.26 BEHIND POLICE QAUARTERS ASHOK NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 202. 16. SHAILA RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS ROAD BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS ASHOK NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 202. 17. JYOTHI RATHNAKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA MANDARA BEHIND MORE SUPER MARKET DERALAKATTE JUNCTION MANGALURU-575 002. 18. B.N. PRADEEP AGED ABUOT 49 YEARS S/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA PRAGATI FORM HOUSE OLD SIGEBAGI ROAD - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 POST: BADRA COLONY BADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. 19. REKHA VIJAY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O SMT. SUNITHA N. NAGAPPA NEAR MAIN ROAD KINNIMULKI UDUPI-576 101. 20. SMT. PREMA (DEAD) D/O ALTE K.T.KORAGAPPA PRASHANTH M., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O PREMA, RAHUTKERI BASRUR-576 211. 21. HIMAKARA A.K., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS H/O LATE SMT. VEENA 22. NISHANTHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O LATE SMT. VEENA 23. NEELIMA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O LATE SMT. VEENA RESPONDENTS NO.21 TO 23 ARE R/O BANTAMALE, SULYA DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 239. 24. HEMAVATHI RAJKUMAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS D/O LATE K.T. KORAGAPPA W/O RAJKUMAR FORESTER - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 NEAR BUS STAND HEMMADI VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK-576 230. 25. SUHAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O DEVARAJ DWARAKANAGAR CHANDRA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE FOR R20 TO R23; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2025, APPEAL AGAINST R3 TO R19, R24 AND R25 DISPENSED WITH) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED IN FDP NO.9/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for respondent No.1, 2 and 20 to 23. 2. This second appeal is filed against the order of the First Appellate Court. This matter was heard in length and this Court even appointed a fresh Court Commissioner and the Court Commissioner has furnished a sketch before this Court after surveying the land and inspite of the same, the dispute is not solved. 3. Now, the parties themselves have settled the matter as suggested by the Court and the issue is only with regard to road leading to the property i.e., plot Nos.1 and 2 and there was shortfall of road to go to plot No.2 and the same is the major portion of the property which belongs to the family. Now, the parties have come up with a settlement that, in addition to the road which has already been formed by owner of plot No.1, the owner of plot No.2, parties have also agreed to form a road in respect of portion of the property which was allotted to them to go to his property and both the roads would - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 be for common usage. Hence, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, now it becomes common entrance for both the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2 and each of the parties have no objection to form the road and they have also undertaken that either of them will not cause any hurdle for usage of common entrance from the main road either to go to plot No.1 or to plot No.2. The owner of plot No.1 has also agreed to leave 2 feet length and width of space, in order to reach the plot No.2 connecting the common entrance to expand the area and owner of plot No.2 has agreed that in lieu of leaving the space of 2 feet length and width to owner of plot No.1, the said space will be compensated by giving the same on the other side of the property, that means, the plot will be readjusted in view of this arrangement between the parties and no dispute with regard to the said fact. 4. Now the parties have prepared a rough sketch and the same is produced before the Court and common entrance in respect of both plot Nos.1 and 2 is shown in ‘yellow’ colour in the sketch prepared by the parties and these changes are only between the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2. The owners of plot - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 Nos.3 and 4 are also happy with the arrangement between the owners of plot Nos.1 and 2 and the owners of plot Nos.3 and 4 have also agreed to abide by the order passed by the First Appellate Court and also the FDP Court. The owner of plot No.3 also to remove the shed which is in existence in the place of common entrance which is shown in ‘yellow’ colour in the rough sketch and should not cause any hurdle for formation of common entrance to plot Nos.1 and 2. In view of this compromise between parties, the rough sketch which is shown in ‘yellow’ colour becomes the part and parcel of this order to make it clear with regard to the terms of the compromise between the parties. It is made it clear that none of the parties should cause any obstruction for usage of each plot which belongs to Smt. Jayanthi Bhaskar Rao, plot No.2 which belongs to Sri B. Devaraj, plot No.3 which belongs to Smt. Susheela and plot No.4 which belongs to Smt. Prema in future. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that owner of plot No.1 has already removed the trees which were in the passage which they have already sold and the owner of plot No.2 should not raise any objection to the same and even - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48605 RSA No. 138 of 2025 the owner of plot No.1 also should not raise any objection while forming the common entrance in the property allotted to the owner of plot No.2 for removing the trees and disposal of the same. The owner of plot Nos.3 and 4 also shall not claim any right over of common entrance leading to plot Nos.1 and 2 and they are not having any right to claim the same. Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13