- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34090 RSA No. 1843 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1843 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: MRS JYOTHI SREE WIFE OF BALAKRISHNA D AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.10-171/8 PADAVU 1, SHAKTHINAGAR MANGALURU- 575 016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAKESH KINI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS RATHI W/O N C GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT AISHWARYA OLD KENT ROAD PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU-575001 DECEASED THROUGH LRS 1(A) NEENA GIRISH, D/O N C GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHRAYA, OLD KENT ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU- 575 001. 1(B) SANJANA SATEESH KUMAR, S/O LATE N.C.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34090 RSA No. 1843 of 2021 R/AT 2-20, 17 KRITI, NEAR KAVOOR, MANGALORE 575 015. 1(C) LAVINA RAMESH, D/O LATE N.C.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KOTHIRA VATTOM, KOTOOLO, 673016. KOZHIKODE. 1(D) SREEKESH C.P, S/O LATE N.C.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 405, MANGALA GATEWAY, MANGALADEVITEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE 575001. 1(E) JEENA PRASHANTH, D/O LATE N.C.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ADITHYA, PUTHIYA PRARAMBA, P.O.ALAVIL, KANNUR 670008. 1(F) SONA VIJAY KUMAR, D/O LATE N.C.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SHRISHTI, KAIBHATTAL, 4TH CROSS, MANGALORE, 575004. 2. SMT JAYASHREE W/O VINOD J KUCKAIN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.10-171/8 PADAVU-1 SHAKTHINAGAR MANGALURU- 575 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO F)) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34090 RSA No. 1843 of 2021 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 AND ORDER XLII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO. 56/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU, D.K., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO. 835/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU D.K, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU IN O.S.NO. 835/2012. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondents files a memo. Memo reads as under: “The respondents 1(a) to 1(f) submits that, they have not interfered with the plaintiff/appellant’s enjoyment of the road existing on the northern side of the plaintiff/appellant’s property as shown in the sketch annexed to the Sale deed (Ex.P-18) till this day and that they will not interfere in future also. The above memo may kindly be placed on record, in the interest of justice and equity.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34090 RSA No. 1843 of 2021 3. In view of the contents of the memo as referred to supra, no further orders are necessary in the present appeal. 4. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. Office is directed to pass the decree incorporating the contents of the memo as part of the decree. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38