In this regular second appeal concerning a suit for permanent injunction, the High Court of Karnataka held that the appellant failed to prove possession of the suit schedule property. Consequently, the Court found no ground to frame a substantive question of law and dismissed the appeal.
None. The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2017 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJARAM T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.L.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN R.A. NO.60/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2015 PASSED IN O.S. NO.185/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI.,
NC: 2023:KHC:29517 RSA No. 889 of 2017
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and heard the
learned counsel for appellant.
NC: 2023:KHC:29517 RSA No. 889 of 2017
NC: 2023:KHC:29517 RSA No. 889 of 2017
extracts and comes to the conclusion that the defendant was not a party in OS No.354/2012. The suit schedule property was in gramatana. Hence, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 which have been produced before the Trial Court does not pertain to the suit schedule property and it cannot establishes the possession. On the other hand documents produced by the defendant also taken note of particularly the registered sale deed and other documents and also considering the evidence of defendant witnesses, thus comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his possession of the suit schedule property.
fails to take note of the documents at Ex.P18 and Ex.P20 i.e., an endorsement issued by the concerned authority with regard to the boundaries.
NC: 2023:KHC:29517 RSA No. 889 of 2017
same is observed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and also when the plaintiff fails to prove the possession and no document on record to prove the possession and cardinal principle granting an order of injunction also as on the date of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff has to prove the possession and then he has to prove with regard to the interference and unless possession is proved the question coming to other conclusion that there is no question of interference arises.
only for the relief of possession and interference and issue No.2 is also framed with regard to the interference is concerned and both the issues are answered as negative. Considering both oral and documentary evidence, the contention of the appellant’s counsel that this Court has to frame substantive question of law with regard to not considering the genuineness of the sale deed which is in possession of the respondent where the appellant has raised an objection regarding its evidentiary value does not arise in a suit for bare injunction and suit is not for the relief of declaration. The contention of the counsel for appellant that the very sale deed is not valid and such question does not arise unless possession is established by the plaintiff by placing document in respect of the sale is concerned, since the suit is only for the relief of bare injunction and hence I do not find any ground to frame substantive question of law and no such case is made out warranting invoking Section 100 of CPC. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court having considering both oral and documentary evidence and considered the material on record and only in second appeal Court can exercise substantive question of law if material is ignored by Trial Court and First Appellate Court and such
NC: 2023:KHC:29517 RSA No. 889 of 2017
circumstances is not found in the case on hand. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law.
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appellate court is justified in dismissing the appeal as the appellant failed to prove possession of the suit property.
Whether a substantive question of law should be framed under Section 100 of the CPC regarding the evidentiary value of the sale deed.
Whether the plaintiff established possession and interference to warrant a permanent injunction.
KAPILA BHAVI SRINIVASAPPA
SMT. FAZEELA
H.P.SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
