- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2051 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD WORK’S 3RD SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE 560 001 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PARISHATH ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE 560 009 4. THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001, …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH S GOGI, AAG FOR SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA) AND: 1. A.K. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O LATE SRI M KRISHNASWAMY MUDLIAR Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT 62, SAINT JOHN'S ROAD BANGALORE 560 042 2. A K MADHAVA KRISHNAN S/O LATE M KRISHNA SWAMY MUDLIAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 62, SAINT JOHN'S ROAD BANGALORE 560 042 BOTH REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI T GOPINATH S/O THAMMANA K H R/AT NO 3, KUVEMPU ROAD R.S. PALYA BANGALORE – 560 033 3. THE PRESIDENT ZILLA PARISHATH OFFICE, I MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE 560 009 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. S SHIVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (REP. BY GPA HOLDER) R3 SERVED ON IA 1/2013] THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 30.3.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 28.6.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.122/1993 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012 passed in R.A.No.18/2008 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Doddaballapura (for short ‘first appellate Court’) and the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2007 passed in O.S.No.122 of 1993 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Doddaballapura (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs, and other respondent was the defendant No.3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction and for other suitable reliefs regarding the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule properties and the defendants interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession of the suit properties. It is contended that there is a public road in between suit A and B lands. The defendants deviated the said road by encroaching suit A land. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs requested officials of the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Despite the request made by the plaintiffs, the officials of the defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiffs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction etc. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendants No.1, 2 and 5 appeared through a counsel, defendant No.3 appeared in person, but did not file a written statement. Despite service of summons, defendant No.4 remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte. 6. Defendant No.1 filed written statement. Defendant Nos.2 and 5 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1 by filing a memo. The defendants denied the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the road is in existence since time immemorial and the road is running off from 47-70 kilometre Yelahanka-Hindupur road to join Madhugiri-Thondebhavi road. The said road previously was under the control of Zilla Parishad, Bangalore (R) District which was taken over by the PWD during 1992-93. After taking over the road by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 the PWD, the condition of the road was improved. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? ii. Whether the plaintiffs prove that there is a public road in between Sy.No.13, 14 and 15 which leads from Madugiri village to Ballapura village and the said road has been used by the public for the past 100 years? iii. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants have deviated the road by encroaching the lands in Sy.Nos.13 and 15 and interference caused by them as stated in para-5 of the plaint? iv. Whether the suit is not maintainable? v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to the relief as prayed for? vi. What order or decree? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 8. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, the General power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs was examined as PW.1 and marked 23 documents. In rebuttal, the Assistatant Executive Engineer, PWD, Doddaballapur was examined himself as DW1 and no documents were produced. 9. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 28.06.2007. 10. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Doddaballapura. 11. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, framed the following points: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 i. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? ii. Whether the plaintiffs have further proved that the defendants have illegally formed a road in Sy.Nos.13 and 14 belonging to the plaintiffs and thereby the defendants have interfered with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property? iii. Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the plaintiffs suit? iv. Whether the defendants have shown sufficient grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal? v. What order? 12. The first appellate Court, after hearing both the sides and after re-appreciating verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment dated 30.03.2012. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 13. This court on 22.02.2022, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the trial Court and first appellate Court were justified in passing the decree directing the respondent/Government to block and dismantle the road in the light of admissions by the plaintiff at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint with regard to existence of the straight road being used by public over 100 years running between lands in Sy.Nos.13, 14 and 15 leading to Maddagiri village to Ballapura village? 14. Learned Additional Advocate General filed a memo along with documents which discloses that the defendants are ready to initiate acquisition proceedings. 15. As the defendants have undertaken to initiate acquisition proceedings vide communication dated 03.12.2025, in view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7708 RSA No. 2051 of 2013 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the communication dated 3.12.2025. ii. In view of disposal of appeal, pending interlocutory application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV