Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – SMT. Yeshodamma (wife of Hanumanthappa), residing at Bethur Road, Davanagere; Respondents – 1) Mathihally Ningappa @ Pujari Ningappa, 2) Shanthamma w/o Kotrapa, 3) Kotrappa S/o Parasappa, 4) SMT. Halamma @ Basamma w/o Mathihally Ningappa, 5) Assistant Executive Engineer, 3rd PWD, Port and Water Resources Department, Sub‑Division Davanagere.
  • Proceedings: Regular Second Appeal No. 1231 of 2007 (DEC) filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 11 Sept 2006 (R.A.No. 257/2005) which had set aside the trial court’s decree dated 29 June 2005 (O.S.No. 90/2002).
  • Background: The plaintiff claimed ownership of a suit‑schedule property allotted by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board under the Rajeev Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Scheme in 2001, mortgaged the house to Rajeev Gandhi Grameena Vasathi Nigam Limited, and paid installments to Corporation Bank. Defendants allegedly trespassed, evicted the plaintiff, and occupied the house. The trial court declared the plaintiff the absolute owner and ordered vacant possession within 60 days. The First Appellate Court reversed that finding, holding that site No. 1 had been acquired for road widening and therefore the plaintiff’s title was invalid.
  • Key Issues: (i) Whether the defendants illegally evicted the plaintiff; (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession; (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 500 per month damages; (iv) Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property under the grant certificate.
  • Evidence: Plaintiff produced 15 documents (Ex.P1‑P15) including the Slum Clearance Board allotment (Ex.P2), a registered mortgage deed dated 12 Oct 2001 (Ex.P3), tax receipts (Ex.P8‑P10), and a complaint (Ex.P11). Defendants produced documents (Ex.D1‑D21) asserting acquisition of site No. 1. Witness testimonies (PW1‑PW3 for plaintiff; DW1‑DW4 for defendants) were recorded.
  • Application: IA No. 1/2012 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC sought production of an endorsement dated 08 Dec 2009 from the PWD stating that the property had not been acquired for road widening. The endorsement, along with letters dated 23 July 2012 and 17 May 2013, confirmed no acquisition.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed the regular second appeal, thereby restoring the trial court’s decree dated 29 June 2005 and setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment dated 11 Sept 2006.
  • The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was permitted; the endorsement and subsequent letters were accepted as conclusive evidence that no acquisition had occurred.
  • No remand of the matter was ordered.

Topics: Legal Judgment, Property Ownership, Civil Appeal