- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 988 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: MADEVALARA PAPANNA DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. THIPPAMMA W/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA D/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NOW R/A KADABANAKATTE VILLAGE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 3. SRI. P SHANTHAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 4. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 AND 4 ARE AGRICULTURIST AND Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 R/A BELAGATTA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 529 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MURALI B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/A BELAGATTA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 529. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. SHYAMA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 21.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.9.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.240/2007 THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) CHITRADURGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from a concurrent finding in a suit for injunction. The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from causing obstruction to the flow of waste water from the plaintiff's house to the drainage and to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of his property lying towards the west and north to south of plaintiff's house. 2. The plaintiff has also sought mandatory injunction for removal of the shed constructed towards the western side of the house which is described as 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff has annexed the sketch to the plaint. 3. In the sketch appended to the plaint, the area shown as N.R.S.T. is described on the edge of the defendants' house and area shown as A.B.C.D. is also marked on the edge of the place shown on the West. 4. The suit is dismissed. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff has not produced his title deeds to substantiate his claim. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 5. Before the Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce the title deeds. The same was accepted and referring to the title deed the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not the owner of 'B' schedule property and consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal. 6. This appeal was admitted on 17.02.2020 to answer the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction on a public utility such as a drain and to remove the illegal construction thereon." 7. As can be noticed from the pleadings, the plaintiff has contended that there is a public drain adjacent to the defendant's property and this fact is not disputed. Between the said public drainage and the compound wall to the east of the public drainage there is an open space which looks like a lane separating the house of the plaintiff and the defendants. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 8. To the east of the compound wall referred to above, there is an open space belonging to the plaintiff and on the east of the open space plaintiff's house is located. 9. The dispute is pertaining to the lane to the west of the compound wall. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the property beyond the compound wall right upto the public drainage. 10. The plaintiff contends that the defendants are obstructing the plaintiff's use of the open space between the compound wall and the drainage and defendants are also obstructing the flow of water in the drainage. 11. The defendants have disputed the claim and took a contention that the open space between the plaintiff's compound wall and the drainage is about 3 feet East to West and the defendants though admitting the existence of the drainage disputed the construction over the drainage. 12. The defendants also disputed the plaintiff's claim that the property between the compound wall and the drainage, is that of the plaintiff. The defendants also contend - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 that the space between the drainage and the plaintiff's compound wall is used by the public. 13. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have concluded that the plaintiff's ownership over the open space between the compound wall and the drainage is not established and consequentially dismissed the suit. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants would contend that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit despite the prayer seeking restraint order against the defendants for not obstructing the flow of water in the public drainage is maintainable. It is his submission that the existence of the public drainage is established and consequently the defendants should be restrained from putting up any structure over the public drainage so as to cause obstruction in the flow of water. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants would contend that First Appellate Court has looked into all the material evidence including the title deeds and also taken into consideration the construction of the structure put up by the plaintiff in his property and has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 he has left a space of around 3 feet between his structure and the compound wall in his own land, and has rightly concluded that there is no property belonging to the plaintiff beyond the compound wall. 16. As far as the drainage is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the construction on the drainage is not established and obstruction is also not established. 17. Admittedly, the title deed pertaining to the suit property was not produced before the Trial Court. It is furnished before First Appellate Court. The title deed would disclose that the plaintiff has purchased the property measuring approximately 11 gaja East to West and 9 gaja North to South which would be approximately 33x27 feet. 18. The Trial Court has also considered that the plaintiff has put up a structure measuring 33x27 feet. This is noticed from the building plan produced. 19. First Appellate Court has also noticed from the photograph produced by the parties that there is a space - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 measuring around 3 feet East to West between the compound wall and the building of the plaintiff. Thus, it has come to the conclusion that the compound wall is in the property belonging to the plaintiff and there is no space on the west of the compound wall up to the drainage, belonging to the plaintiff. 20. This Court after having considered the reasoning assigned by both Courts as well as the documents produced, is of the view that the open space between the plaintiff's structure and the compound wall would indicate that the plaintiff has constructed the compound wall in his own land. The reason is the residential building constructed by the plaintiff measures around 33x27 feet as can be seen from the property records. 21. Thus, the contention that beyond the compound wall, the plaintiff has a space up to the edge of the drainage cannot be accepted. 22. As far as the alleged obstruction to the flow of water in the drainage is concerned, no material is placed to hold that there is an obstruction to the flow of water in the drainage or the construction in the drainage. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 23. It is noticed from the records that the plaintiff has claimed right over the plaint schedule property beyond the compound wall, which is in existence in front of his house. As already noticed, said portion of the property is not the plaintiff's property and it appears to be a lane meant for both plaintiff and defendants and the public. 24. The records would reveal that the plaintiff's property is only up to the compound wall and not beyond that. Beyond the compound wall, there is a space up to the drainage, and beyond the drainage, lies the property of the respondents/defendants. 25. The records would also reveal that respondents/defendants' residential house is adjacent to the drainage. Though the plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the property beyond the compound wall, the records would establish that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property beyond the compound wall. 26. The property between the compound wall and up to the drain is a public lane. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 27. Ex.P.7-Photographs would reveal that there is small structure on the public lane. That structure has to be removed. 28. Learned counsel for respondents/defendants submits that the structure is not put by respondents. It is his submission that the white building shown in Ex.P.7 is the property that belongs to respondents/defendants and they have put up the structure only in their property and not on the property of the plaintiff or the lane, which is between the compound wall and the public lane. 29. Under these circumstances, though the plaintiff has filed a suit on the premise that the property beyond the compound wall up to the drain is his property, the said contention is not established, and as it is established from the records that the property beyond the compound wall up to the drain is public lane and the structure, which is appearing on the public lane has to be removed, there has to be an order in this behalf. 30. To that extent, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. Hence, the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29326 RSA No. 988 of 2013 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 in O.S.No.240/2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Chitradurga are modified. iii) The judgment and decree dated 21.02.2013 in R.A.No.29/2010 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga are modified. iv) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in-part. v) The structure on the public lane in Ex.P.7 has to be removed by the Panchayat Officials as the said structure is on the public lane. vi) It is further made clear that the white structure in the photograph at Ex.P7 belonging to respondents/defendants on the edge of the drain should not be removed. vii) No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS, PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30, CT: BHK