- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100617 OF 2015 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. THE NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION CONSTITUTED UNDER ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT, R/BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI-591201. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER NWKRTC RAIBAG-591317, A1 & A2, R/BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MOHAMMAD YASUF BANGAL MULLA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG-591317. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.12.2014 IN R.A. NO.36/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2013 IN O.S. NO.478/2010 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG AND DISMISS THE SUIT WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.22 15:55:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants – North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2014 in R.A.No36/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 in O.S.No.478/2010 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was granted to the plaintiff during 1978 and thereafter the name of the plaintiff was incorporated in the municipality documents. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff having obtained permission from the municipality, has put up construction of a shed and as such running timber business in the shed. It is further stated in the 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 plaint that the defendant - Corporation is the owner of the land wherein Sy.No.2B having granted to them during 1984 and defendants are not concerned with the property belonging to the plaintiff, however, the defendants are trying to put up compound wall in the suit schedule property and as such the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.478/2010 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant - Corporation. 4. After service of notice, the defendant – Corporation entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant - Corporation that the width of the road has already been adjudicated in the suits and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and produced 11 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Officer of the defendant - Corporation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 was examined as DW.1 and got marked 1 document as Ex.D.1. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 decreed the suit and as such directed the defendant - Corporation not to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant - Corporation has preferred R.A.No.36/2013 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.12.2014, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.478/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant - Corporation has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. The appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2021 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and sought to produce certain documents as additional evidence in the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 8. I have heard Sri.Suresh N Kini, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Shriharsh A Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the land was granted to the defendant - Corporation during 1983 is to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas out of 5 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.2 at Raibag and therefore, the plaintiff has not produced the relevant documents to establish his right over the suit schedule property and therefore both the Courts below have misguided with the interpretation of Ex.P.5 and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 10. Sri.Suresh N Kini, learned counsel appearing for the appellants invited attention of the Court to I.A.No.1/2021 by referring to document No.1 wherein the land was granted in favour of defendant - Corporation in Sy.No.2 of Raibag. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and particularly emphasized on the admission made by DW.1 in the evidence and further submitted that the land belonging to the plaintiff is not neighbouring land of the defendant - Corporation and therefore, it is argued that, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be confirmed in this appeal. 12. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below. On careful examination of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, the suit schedule property has been granted to the plaintiff during 1978, which is not disputed by the defendant - Corporation and on the other hand, the defendants have filed written statement, stating that the grant was made in favour of defendant - Corporation by the Municipality for construction of the bus stand. Perusal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 of the evidence of DW.1 that as per the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.2 makes it clear that the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff is located far away from the land belonging to the defendant - Corporation and therefore, Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that any attempt made by the defendant - Corporation to put up compound wall would defeat the legal right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 13. Taking into consideration the evidence of DW.1 and the averments made in the written statement, I am of the view that no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It is also to be noted that the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2021 and sought to produce certain documents, however, on examination of the documents annexed to the application in I.A.No.1/2021 makes it clear that there is no foundation laid in the written statement to substantiate the documents to be included in the application. Hence, I do not find any merit in the application. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5229 RSA No. 100617 of 2015 14. Further, as the First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the material on record, so also, after assessing the factual aspects on record as per para Nos.17 and 18 of the impugned judgment, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed as there is no perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and the appellants herein have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 15. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications are dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22