- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1643 OF 2021 (MON) BETWEEN: RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE S.V.BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O PARK EXTENSION BESIDES MATHURA ARCADE SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P N HARISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K SUDATH KUMAR S/O LATE JINARAJA HOTEL ASHOKA OPP. MUNICIPALITY BUILDING, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD, PORT AND INLAND WATER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL DEPARTMENT, BALARAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.150/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA in R.A.NO.150/2014 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE SUIT IN OS NO.62/2011 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA BY ALLOWING THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL WITH COSTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P.N.Harish, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Balagangadhar G. S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Gopalakrishna Soodi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. Present second appeal is filed by defendant No.1 challenging the validity of the judgment passed in RA No.150/2014 dated 30.10.2019, whereby the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court reversed the decree of dismissal of suit filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.62/2011 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 3. The appeal is filed on following substantial questions of law: “a) Whether the first appellate court committed an error in holding that since no relief is claimed against the first defendant, notice under section 80 of CPC is not required? b) Whether the first appellate court has got jurisdiction to determine the inter se claims made for payment of compensation for acquisition of property in a suit instituted in this regard? c) Whether the first appellate court is justified in decreeing the suit without there being any material on record to show that the plaintiff has installed the furniture, shutters, electrical motors etc., more so when the owner of the property made a claim that he has installed these accessories? d) Whether the first appellate court committed an error in decreeing the suit when admittedly the plaint averments is silent about the value of the property available in the building at the time of demolition and the loss caused to the plaintiff? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 e) Whether the first appellate court committed an error in not properly formulating the points for consideration.” 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 4.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.61,348/- from defendant No.2. Plaintiff contended that he was a tenant under T.G.Chandrashekarappa son of Late Gatiyappa. Said T.G.Chandrashekarappa had filed a suit in O.S.No.289/2005 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the plaintiff. Ultimately, said suit came to be dismissed. 4.2. When the matter stood thus, father of defendant No.2 (appellant) purchased the said property and he filed a suit in O.S.No.111/2009. Plaintiff also filed a suit in O.S.No.65/2009. After 08.10.2008, District Authority Shivamogga has taken up demolition action at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 B.H.Road, Shivamogga for the purpose of road widening from the orders of the Government. 4.3. Plaintiff being in occupation of the suit property, as tenant under T.G.Chandrashekarappa, also held an agreement of sale in his favour. T.G.Chandrashekarappa sold the property in favour of S.V.Basavaraj, who is the father of defendant No.2 and submitted the petition to the Government who was defendant No.1 in the Court below, requesting him to compensate for the loss of furniture, interior decoration etc., to the tune of Rs.2,85,000/-. Plaintiff requested the defendant to furnish the details of the applications filed by S.V.Basavaraj who is the father of defendant No.2 but no such particulars were furnished. Therefore, plaintiff filed a suit to the extent of recovery of sum of Rs.61,348/- from defendant No.2. 5. Said suit on contest, came to be dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.150/2014. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, reappreciated the material evidence on record and contended that plaintiff has not claimed the entire amount in a sum of Rs.1,68,478/- or sum of Rs.1,22,696/- but he has only claimed sum of Rs.61,348/- which is the loss he suffered on account of the property in occupation as tenant under T.G.Chandrashekarappa, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in a sum of Rs.61,348/- with costs. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 is before this Court, in this appeal on following grounds:  “The impugned judgments of the first appellate court is highly erroneous, illegal and opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case.  The first appellate court has committed error in not properly formulating the points for consideration as mandated under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC.  The first appellate court committed an error in decreeing the suit without there being any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 material on record to show as to what the actual damage that has been caused is and its value.  The first appellate court lost sight of the fact that plaintiff has miserably failed to establish as to whether he has put up the furniture and fixtures and interiors and if so what are the cost that have been incurred and when it has been put up. Under such circumstances, the first appellate court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for decree.  When the available materials on record clinches that the plaintiff has not approached the District Administration with relevant documents for compensation and there is no claim made before the authorities at a relevant time with proof of ownership and occupancy documents, the first appellate court committed an grave error in ordering for repayment.  The first appellate court committed an error in interfering with the jurisdiction of the acquiring authorities in determining the eligibility with regard to payment of compensation and quantum of compensation. It is for the authorities to decide as to who is entitled for compensation for the acquisition of the property and the damages caused therein. The civil courts - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 have no jurisdiction and the first appellate court without any jurisdiction decreed the suit.  The first appellate court ignored the fact that when the owner of the building i.e. the father of the appellant made a claim before the authorities that the furniture and fixtures relating to Hotel, shutter and electric motor etc., is installed by him and not by the plaintiff, without there being any enquiry as to who has installed these accessories, it committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the damage, as if the it is the plaintiff who has installed these accessories.  When the plaint averments is silent about the value of the property available in the building at the time of demolition and the loss caused to the plaintiff, the first appellate court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.  The first appellate court has not properly looked into the terms of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff as per Ex.P5 and it committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has made a demand through legal notice. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021  The first appellate court committed an error in holding that there is no relief is claimed against defendant no.1, the notice under section 80 of CPC is not necessary. It is respectfully submitted that this finding of the first appellate court is highly erroneous that since whether any relief is claimed or not, when a State or its officers are made as defendants the notice under Section 80 of CPC is mandatory and irrespective of reliefs prayed for in the suit. The trial court came to conclusion that the suit is not maintainable and the first appellate court committed an error in reversing the same holding that since no relief is claimed against the State, the suit is maintainable.  The first appellate court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff from the documentary and oral evidence proved that he is entitled for damages caused to the suit schedule premises. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that suit itself was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC as the Government was arraigned as defendant No.1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 10. He further contended that, First Appellate Court did not appreciate that when once the suit property was sold by T.G.Chandrashekarappa in favour of father of defendant No.2 namely S.V.Basavaraj, plaintiff had no right whatsoever to claim any money from defendant No.2 and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. Per contra, Sri.Balagangadhar G. S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Gopalakrishna Soodi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. In the light of the grounds urged by the appellant as well as the substantial questions of law raised above, in the case on hand, it is pertinent to note that no relief was claimed against the Government and therefore, notice under Section 80 of CPC was not necessary and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 therefore, substantial question of law No.1 needs no consideration. 14. Insofar as jurisdiction of the Trial Court to determine the inter se claim is concerned, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and he had filed a suit in O.S.65/2009 whereas the father of defendant No.2 has filed a suit in O.S.No.111/2009. Admittedly, when the suits were pending, demolition of the property has taken place for widening the road. Therefore, possession of the suit property had not taken place as on the date of demolition. Therefore, there was no inter se dispute at all, as is contended by the appellant. 15. Insofar as remaining substantial questions of law are concerned, they are on the factual aspects and not on the law. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter does not require further consideration by admitting the matter. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29206 RSA No. 1643 of 2021 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47