- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31332 RSA No. 264 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVA GAIKWAD AGED ABOUT 21 YFEARS, S/O G.N RAJASHEKAR, 2. SRI G.N RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SHIVA GAIKWAD, BOTH ARE R/A MOLAKALMURU, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 535. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, W/O LATE DIVATE HANUMANTHAPPA, 2. SRI D.H. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE DIVATE HANUMANTHAPPA, 3. SRI D.H. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE DIVATE HANUMANTHAPPA, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31332 RSA No. 264 of 2014 4. 4(A) SRI D.H. DEVADAS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS GAYATRI W/O DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4(B) DEEPTI DAS D/O DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, 4(C) PRITAM DAS D/O DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, SINCE R4(B) AND (C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND R4(A), GAYATRI, MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE R/O DODDAPET, MOLALKALMURU TOWN – 577 535 5. D.H. SIDDESHWARA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE DIVATE HANUMANTHAPPA, RESPONDENT Nos. 1 TO 5 ARE NEAR PANDURANGA TEMPLE, MOLAKALMURU TOWN 6. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATH, MOLAKALMURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 535 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M S SHANKARAGULLI., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R4(A) & R5 R4(B) & (C) ARE MINORS REP BY R4(A) R6 SERVED R1 ABATED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.11.2024) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31332 RSA No. 264 of 2014 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 9.10.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.63/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 3.9.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.15/2010 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOLAKALMURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from a concurrent finding in a suit for injunction. The suit is dismissed and the plaintiffs are before this Court. 2. Plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming a right over the wall shown as ‘AB wall’ in the sketch appended to the plaint, contending that the present wall is a common wall made for the use of the plaintiffs and the defendants and sought restraint order to restrain the defendants from putting up any structure over the common wall. 3. The plaintiffs to substantiate their contention produced Ex.P32 an agreement said to have been entered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31332 RSA No. 264 of 2014 into between the plaintiff No.2’s father and father of defendants No.2 to 5. The plaintiffs have also examined two witnesses to prove the agreement at Ex.P32, which is seriously disputed by the defendants. 4. The Trial Court has concluded that, the right over the AB wall is not conferred on the plaintiff No.2’s father as the agreement is not registered. The First Appellate Court, in addition to agreeing with the finding of the Trial Court, extracted the evidence of witnesses who have been examined to prove the execution of the agreement marked at Ex.P32, wherein the witnesses have stated that, they are not aware of the contents of Ex.P32. Thus, the First Appellate Court has also concurred the finding of the Trial Court that the agreement marked at Ex.P32 does not confer the title over AB wall. 5. Having considered the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and considering the fact that agreement at Ex.P32 seeks to confer the right - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31332 RSA No. 264 of 2014 over the AB wall in favour of plaintiff No.2’s father is not registered, this Court does not find any error in the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that Ex.P32 did not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff No.2’s father. 6. 6. The finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to the effect that, the agreement at Ex.P32 is not proved also appears to be a valid finding considering the evidence of the witnesses extracted and discussed by First Appellate Court in its judgment. 7. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings. 8. No substantial law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7