- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32238 RSA No. 1560 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1560 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/o LATE MUDDAHANUMAIAH R/OF YALIYUR VILLAGE IN KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK PIN : 572137 …APPELLANT (BY SRI B.P.RADHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI THIMMAIAH DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS., SMT. SANNATHIMMAKKA, DEAD, BY LR’s RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 1. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/o. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SRI. RANGANATHAPPA S/o. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SRI. GANGADHARA S/o. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32238 RSA No. 1560 of 2022 ALL ARE RESIDING AT KADAVIGERE VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 137 4. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/o CHANNIGARAMAIAH, RESIDING AT YALIYUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, PIN -572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIVEK S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.154/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU. ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.No.223/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32238 RSA No. 1560 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Smt. B.R. Radha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vivek S, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and R.P.Somashekaraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. Second defendant in O.S.No.223/2015 is the appellant in the present second appeal. A suit for declaration and injunction was filed by Sri Thimmaiah, who is the first respondent in the present appeal. Suit was decreed in part, denying the declaratory relief and granted the relief of injunction. 3. Being not satisfied with the decree, both plaintiff- Thimmaiah and defendant No.1 in the suit namely, Basappa filed two appeals before the First Appellate Court which were numbered as R.A.No.154/2021 and R.A.No.2/2022. 4. In both the appeals, defendant No.2 who is the appellant before this Court was a party/respondent and engaged the services of an Advocate whose initial is HVR. 5. After the service of notice in both the appeals, the present appellant who was party/respondent in the appeals and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32238 RSA No. 1560 of 2022 defendant No.2 before the trial Court, did not chose to question the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.223/2015, either by filing a separate appeal or cross appeal or at least cross objection. 6. According to the appellant, he is the owner to an extent of the suit property and by filing a suit, plaintiff and defendant No.1 are working against the interest of defendant No.2. Therefore, the present appeal is sought to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law. a. “Is not the judgment of the trial court perverse by granting injunctive relief, on account of the plaintiff himself stated during evidence, that he left the suit schedule premises and shifted himself to Kadavigere Village? b. Is not the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court in declaratory and injunctive relief in the absence of any grant order through which the plaintiff makes the claim in respect of the schedule property? c. Is not the Judgment of 1st Appellate Court is perverse, on the ground that, it granted declaratory relief based only on revenue entries?” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32238 RSA No. 1560 of 2022 7. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the respondents in this said appeal. 8. They support the impugned judgment to the extent that the defendant No.2 failed to challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court by filing separate appeal or cross appeal or at least cross objection. 9. This Court finds sufficient force in such arguments that since the defendant No.2 did not choose to contest the correctness of the judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.223/2015 by filing a separate appeal or cross appeal or cross objection in R.A.No.154/2021 or R.A.No.2/2022 wherein the defendant No.2-present appellant, who had the services of an Advocate, filing a second appeal by the defendant No.2 per se not maintainable. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Regular Second Appeal filed by defendant No.2 - Lakshmaiah is hereby rejected. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32238 RSA No. 1560 of 2022 (ii) Office to return certified copies after keeping photo copies. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR