- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32766 RSA No. 47 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI B G NANJAPPA S/O LATE B M GANAPATHI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A ARUVATHOKLI VILLAGE AND POST GONIKOPAL VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 213 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KOTRAMADA B SUBBAIAH S/O LATE BELLIAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. KOTRAMADA B PONNAPA S/O LATE BELLIAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT HYSODLUR VILLAGE AND POST HUDIKERE HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 249 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ALOKE MADAPPA, ADVOCATE AND SMT. ADITHI S., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 28.09.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2007 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJAPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.6.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.7/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, VIRAJPET. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32766 RSA No. 47 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding in a suit for injunction. The suit is dismissed and the appeal is dismissed. The description of the property shown by the plaintiff reads as under: "A Private road commencing from Sy.No.110/1 of Hysodlur Village measuring about 300 meters in length and 3 meters in breadth which leads to Sy.No.110/7 of Hysodlur Village, situated at Hysodlur Village, Virajpet Taluk, S.Kodagu." 2. The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of Sy.No.110/7. The description as referred to above would in unmistakable terms reveal that the plaintiff is claiming right over a private road. 3. In Paragraph No. 4 of the plaint, appellant- plaintiff has averred that the defendants have put up a gate in Sy.No.110/1 by blocking the road leading to Sy. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32766 RSA No. 47 of 2013 No. 110/7. In this background, the suit in O.S.No.7/2005 is filed alleging existence of road in Sy. No.110/1. 4. The defendants contested the suit. The defendants denied the existence of a road in Sy.No.110/1. The defendants have taken a contention that there is a public road towards North of Sy.No. 111 of Hysodlur Village and it is urged that the plaintiff used to reach his property from the said public road through Sy. No. 111. The trial court has dismissed this suit. The first appellate court has also dismissed the appeal. 5. This appeal was admitted on 05.02.2020 to answer the following substantial questions of law. "1) Whether the plaintiff had as perspective right of easement over the property of the defendants to reach his coffee estate in Sy.No.110/7 of Hysodlur Village? "2) Whether the defendants are able to establish that the plaintiff had an alternative way to reach his property other than the one claimed by the plaintiff in the suit? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32766 RSA No. 47 of 2013 6. This court has directed the parties to produce the record of right pertaining to Sy No. 110/1, over which the right of way is claimed by the plaintiff, as the said record of right was not produced before the trial court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo along with record of right pertaining to Sy. No. 110/1 referred to above. The record of right would reveal that the extent of Sy. No. 110/1 is 32 guntas and the property stands in the name of Banangala Madappa. Banangala Madappa is not made a party to the suit. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that right claimed by the appellant-plaintiff cannot be adjudicated without impleading Banangala Madappa as a party to the proceeding. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable. Thus, without adjudicating the claim relating to Sy.No.110/1, as against Banangala Madappa, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32766 RSA No. 47 of 2013 9. Accordingly, in the light of the aforementioned factors, there is no need to answer the substantial questions of law, the appeal is dismissed. 10. The plaintiff is at liberty to take such recourse as advised in law, if he has grievance against the owner of Sy No.110/1, subject to all just exceptions in law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13