- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42741 CRP No. 771 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.771 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: KADYAMADA NANJAPPA S/O LATE KARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O ARUVATHOKLU VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK S KODAGU -571201 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER K N POONACHA S/O KADYAMADA NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O ARUVATHOKLU VILLAGE, PONNAMPET TALUK S.KODAGU-571 201 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANISHA SHERVEGAR FOR SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI MANIAPANDA BOPANNA S/O HARISH NACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. MANIAPANDA SOMANNA S/O LATE HARISH NACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT ARUVATHOKLU VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK S. KODAGU -571201 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42741 CRP No. 771 of 2025 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VII IN OS.No.38/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.VII FILED UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Anisha Sherevegar, advocate for Sri Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff challenging the order rejecting her application I.A.No.7 dated 22.09.2025 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.38/2019 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'be Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42741 CRP No. 771 of 2025 a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property. b) Ordering permanent injunction restraining the defendant and persons claiming through them from trespassing into the suit schedule properties disturbing the possession of the plaintiff, of the suit schedule property in any manner.” DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY “An area of 0.75 acre (seventy five cents) of coffee cultivated land in Sy.No.62/10 of Aruvathoklu Village. This is bounded on the East: Sy.No.62/9; West: Sy.No.62/3; North: Public Road, South: Coffee land of the plaintiff in Sy.No.62/11. This coffee land has a path of the width of about 10 feet running from North to South and on the eastern boundary an Iron gate is put at the entrance of the path, facing the public road. The suit property is fenced on all sides with barbed wire fence.” 4. Plaintiff contended that she is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 14.06.1967 from Girigowdara Laxmamma and her son Nanjappa. 5. Defendant started interfering with the possession of the suit property and therefore, the suit came to be filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42741 CRP No. 771 of 2025 6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants appeared and filed written statement inter alia admitting the title of the plaintiff, but set up the plea of right of easement in respect of the suit property. 7. Based on the admission of the title to the suit property, plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for decreeing the suit on admission. 8. Said application was opposed by the defendants. 9. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is being assailed in the present revision petition by the plaintiff. 10. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, this Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents/defendants as the matter can be disposed of without hearing the respondents. 11. In order to appreciate the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42741 CRP No. 771 of 2025 the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under: “6. Judgment on admissions. (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.” 12. On careful perusal of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the suit can be decreed provided there is an unequivocal admission made by the defendant either through the written statement or otherwise. 13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is an unequivocal admission on the part of the defendants about the title of the plaintiff. But it is also pleaded by the defendants that the suit relief cannot be granted in view of the counter claim made by the defendants taking the plea of right of easement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42741 CRP No. 771 of 2025 14. In other words, the issue that would be triable in the suit is that whether the defendants would make out that they had the right of easement in respect of the suit property and therefore, the counter claim needs to be adjudicated and suit to be dismissed. 15. When such is the conditional admission in the written statement, the admission made by the defendants with regard to the title of the plaintiff cannot be the sole basis for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by resorting to Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. 17. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) However the observations made by this Court shall not affect the rights of the parties before the Trial Court. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 62