- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2003 OF 2016 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2002 OF 2016 IN RSA No. 2003/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SANNACHIKKANNA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 1(a). CHANNAMMA W/O LATE SANNACHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 1(b). JAYANNA S/O LATE SANNACHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT DODDARAMAPURA GOLLARAHATTI, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572214. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR A1(a& b)) AND: 1. SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O APPANNA Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 2. GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O SHIVARAJU 3. ERANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SHIVARAJU ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDARAMAPURA GOLLARAHATTI, KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENTS) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ITINERATE COURT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.281/2003 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI. IN RSA NO. 2002/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SANNACHIKKANNA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 1(a). CHANNAMMA W/O LATE SANNACHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 1(b). JAYANNA S/O LATE SANNACHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT DODDARAMAPURA GOLLARAHATTI, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572214. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR A1(a & b)) AND: 1. SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. NINGAMMA RESIDING AT DODDARAMAPURA, GOLLARAHATTI, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M VINAYAKEERTHY FOR C/R.,ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ITINERATE COURT C.N. HALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.281/2003 ON THE FILE OF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RSA No.2003/2016 is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.281/2003, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2016 in R.A.No.4/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chikkanayakanahalli, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2015 in O.S.No.281/2003, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. RSA No.2002/2016 is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.108/2003, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2016 in R.A.No.87/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chikkanayakanahalli, partly allowing the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2014 in O.S.No.108/2003, on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 3. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.281/2003 that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit property belonged to father of the plaintiff and after the demise of his father, plaintiff has inherited the suit schedule property. It is also stated that there is pipeline connecting two borewells shown in the sketch appended to the plaint as AB and therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiff that defendants are interfering by damaging the pipeline and attempted to remove the same from the suit schedule property and accordingly, the plaintiff has filed in O.S.No.281/2003, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 4. After service of notice, defendants entered appearance and defendant No.1 filed written statement and contended that, land bearing Sy.No.35/1 of Doddarampura Village belongs to the father of the plaintiff. Further it is the contention of defendant No.1 that the land bearing the Sy.No.35/2 belonging to defendant No.1 is situate towards south of the Sy.No.35/1. It is also stated in the written statement that since the plaintiff attempted to take pipeline in Sy.No.35/2, the defendant No.1 has filed O.S.No.108/2003 against the plaintiff seeking similar - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 relief and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit, on the ground that the defendant has laid the pipeline in Sy.No.35/2 and not in Sy.No.35/1, belonging to the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, formulated issues for consideration. In order to establish his case, plaintiff himself got examined one witness as P.W.1 and produced nine documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The defendant himself got examined as D.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.D1 to D9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2015 dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has filed R.A.No.4/2016 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2016, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.281/2003. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff in O.S.No.281/2003 has preferred RSA No.2003/2016. 6. The facts in nutshell in RSA No.2002/2016 are that the defendant in O.S.No.281/2003, Sri. Shivaraju (respondent No.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 in RSA No.2003/2016) has filed O.S.No.108/2003, seeking relief of permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that land bearing Sy.No.35/2 belonged to the plaintiff and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and defendant herein has interfered with the same and also attempted to dig and lay pipeline encroaching the property and therefore, plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.108/2003. 7. After service of notice, the defendant herein (plaintiff in O.S.No.281/2003) has filed written statement admitting that the defendant has installed two borewells long back in the property in question and both the Courts below and there is no occasion for the defendant to lay a pipeline by encroaching the land and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff got three witnesses examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and produced four documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. Defendant examined one witness as D.W.1 and produced eleven document which were marked as Exs.D1 to D11. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 A Court Commissioner was appointed in the suit and he was examined as C.W.1 and four documents were marked as Exs.C1 to C4. 9. After considering the material on record, the Trial Court, by its Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2014, decreed the suit and defendant No.2 was directed to remove the pipeline installed in the property as per the sketch ABCD. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred R.A.No.87/2014 before the First Appellate Court. Same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2016, allowed the appeal in part and as such, set aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.108/2003, however, the defendant was restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred RSA No.2002/2016. 10. I have heard Sri. B.R. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased appellant/defendant and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 Sri. M. Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / Caveator / plaintiff, in both the appeals. 11. Sri. B.R. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that, both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that plaintiff has laid pipeline and connected borewells and admittedly there is a bund (way) which was lying in the same place for more than three to four decades which approaches the property belonging to the appellant and respondent and therefore, it is contended that, appellant herein has made out a case for removing the pipeline in the land bearing Sy.No.35/2 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, Sri. M. Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that respondent-herein has not interfered with the suit schedule property belonging to the defendant which is the land bearing Sy.No.35/2. It is further submitted that the land belonging to the respondent is lying in Sy.No.35/1 and therefore, the defendant has interfered with the suit schedule property - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 belonging to the appellant /plaintiff and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeals. 13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. It is not in dispute that land bearing Sy.No. 35/2 belongs to the appellant No.1 herein and land bearing Sy.No.35/1 belongs to the respondent herein. The claim made by the defendant is to protect the pipeline which cuts the borewells belonging to the defendant / appellant herein. On the other hand, the said aspect was countered by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. It is not disputed that plaintiff and defendant are neighbour land owners. In that view of the matter, though the evidence on record indicates about supporting relief given in the suit, however, on careful examination of the sketch at Ex.C2 filed by the Commissioner appointed as per the order on I.A. would indicate that the said sketch has been prepared in the presence of the Senior Supervisor and also in front of the Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner has drawn the mahazar of the property - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34068 RSA No. 2003 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 2002 of 2016 belonging the parties. In that view of the matter, that the report of the Commissioner would indicate that the defendant in O.S.No.108/2003 (appellant herein) has encroached the property belonging to the plaintiff / respondent herein and therefore, the Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below in the suit is just and proper. I have also carefully examined the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, wherein the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, arrived at the conclusion that the defendant/respondent being the owner of the land in Sy.No.35/2. 14. In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity in the Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below and therefore, the appellant herein has not made out a case for interference in this appeal by forming substantial question of law as required under S.100 of CPC. 15. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29