- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1040 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: MR JOHN LAWRENCE LEWIS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE ANTHONY JOSEPH LEWIS R/AT MATAPADY VILLAGE AND POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576213 …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANTHAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHANTHAR REP BY ITS SECRETARY, CHANTHAR VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA POST, UDUPI TQ AND DIST-576213 2. ANANTHA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O PUTTA NAYAK CHANTHAR, BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 3. SEETHARAM HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 S/O NARYANA HEBBAR HEBBAR HOUSE, DEVA BAILU CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 4. FRANCIS D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O THOMAS D SOUZA CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 5. P K NAGESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAYYA BALEGARA R/AT CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 6. DEVADAS RAO AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O DAMODHAR RAO R/AT ‘ADESH’, CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 7. MR PAUL DERRIL BANZ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE SIMON BANZ CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 8. MRS RENNY BANZ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O MR. PAUL CHANTHARU VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 9. MRS MEENA D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O FRANCIS D SOUZA ’ANUSH’, CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 10. MR GEORGE LEWIS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O AGUSTIN D SOUZA CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 11. MR VINCENT ROSHAN D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O AUGUSTIN D SOUZA CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 12. MR. SHAILA LEWIS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O SIPRIYAN LEWIS DEVUBAIL CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 13. MR VASUDEVA BHAT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT ‘PANNAGA’ DEVABAIL CHANTHARU VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 14. MRS TRIVENI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O VASUDEVA BHAT DEVUBAIL CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 15. MR CYPRIAN LEWIS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH LEWIS DEVUBAIL CHANTHARU VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK-576213 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that at the first instance, suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction only and subsequently, sought for the relief of mandatory injunction. The claim of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and in actual possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff’s contention is that defendant is farming road forcibly in the plaint Item No.2 of the property. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that Chanthar-Devubail road has been in existence from time immemorial. It is also the contention of the defendant that suit is suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. The Trial Court taking into note of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P34. On the other hand, defendants have also examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D18. 4. The Trial Court having considered the material placed on record, answered Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative holding that the plaintiff is in possession in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property, but there exists a road and in paragraph 19, the Trial Court taken note of the admissions on the part of the witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW3, particularly the evidence of PW1 wherein he categorically admits that in his property, there was a mud road and the vehicles and general public are also using the same and now, black topping was done to the said road. However, he claims that he objected the same. He also categorically admits that prior to that he was not having - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 any knowledge about the same. This admission was taken note of by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that already road was formed and plaintiff's possession is in respect of ‘A’ schedule property except the road portion and defendants also proved that road in question is in existence in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property since several years and recently black topping was also done. The Trial Court answered Issue No.3 as affirmative holding that defendants have proved the existence of road and made an observation that if the property is acquired, the remedy to the plaintiff in respect of the road portion is to claim compensation before an appropriate authority. Hence, dismiss the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also considering grounds urged in the appeal as well as both oral and documentary evidence available on record, in paragraph 37 made an observation that evidence of PW1 and PW2 would clearly - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 indicate that there exists a mud road over Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Hence, the formation of new road has pleaded does not arise for consideration. In fact, it appears that plaintiff by filing a police complaint as per Ex.P8 on 14.01.2009 had tried to create a false cause of action. However, Ex.P9 endorsement given by the police would again come in the way of plaintiff's contention that as on the date of filing of the suit, there was no such road in existence. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the Civil Court cannot adjudicate upon those matters which are within the domain of Land Acquisition Officer as per Section 63 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. However, made an observation that it dehors the observations of this Court, if the appellant makes any representation before the respondent-panchayath, the concerned authority, then it is for the said authority to independently examine the claim. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in dismissing the suit for the relief of mandatory injunction in respect of Item No.2 of the property is concerned even though defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the factum of acquisition of land for farming alleged road for public purpose, having held that Grama Panchaya has neither acquired any property from the plaintiff’s vendor nor obtained any permission to farm any road. Hence, ought not to have dismissed the suit. The counsel also vehemently contend that the very reasoning given by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court is not in proper perspective and hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantive question of law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and also considering the material available on record, it discloses that no doubt the plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the property and property is in existence in respect of ‘A’ schedule property and Item No.2 is in Sy.No.121 to the extent 2 acres 69 guntas, assessment Rs.2.16 paisa and relief is sought for mandatory injunction. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having considered the material and record particularly, admission on the part of PW1 who has categorically admitted that earlier mud road was in existence and also in the said road, vehicles are moving and also the same is formed as a damber road and the said fact is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph 19 and in paragraph 20, discussed in detail, but the Court comes to the conclusion that the same cannot be relied upon. However, considering the material and record, particularly the road is in existence in ‘A’ schedule property is concerned and dismissed the suit in coming to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 the conclusion that mandatory injunction cannot be granted in favour of the appellant since road has already in existence and the same is also formed and defendants have also proved the very existence of the road and the said admission taken note of by both the Courts. When such concurrent finding is given and finding is also in accordance with the evidence available on the record particularly, admission on the part of PW1 that mud road was in existence and the same was now formed as damber road and the First Appellate Court taken note of the said fact in paragraphs 37 and 38, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantive questions of law. This Court not found any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Under the circumstances, the question of invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43506 RSA No. 1040 of 2024 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Liberty is given to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy with regard to the compensation is concerned since already road is formed and the same is in existence before the appropriate authority. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN