Appeal against temporary injunction granted to plaintiffs in a title declaration suit over land in Sy.No.84/2. The High Court held the trial court rightly found a prima facie case based on 1959 sale deed, mortgage deed and subsequent sale deeds, and dismissed the appeal.
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 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1876 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/O G. NAGENAHALLI, GOLLARAHATTI, KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572129.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O G. NAGENAHALLI, GOLLARAHATTI, KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572129.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.16.12.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.192/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC (ITENERATE) COURT, KORATAGERE, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
by the Trial Court in allowing the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 wherein
appellants are restrained by way of temporary injunction restraining the defendants interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit.
Thammanna. Out of the said property, they sold land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas to one Dodda Chittaiah who is the father of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 22.11.1968. The remaining property i was in possession of Gooli Chittaiah, Ajjaiah, Dodda Chittaiah and Kariyappa. Out of it, Kariyappa sold share of his property to Ajjaiah under the registered sale deed dated 06.12.1966. Since then, Gooli Chittaiah, Ajjaiah & Dodda Chittaiah were in joint possession and enjoyment of suit properties as absolute owners. The revenue records stands in their names.
much less, possession over the suit property. It is also sworn to an affidavit by plaintiff No.2 in support of the application that earlier Gooli Chittaiah, Ajjaiah, dodda Chittaiah and Kariyappa have executed a registered mortgage deed dated 13.02.1960 in favour of one Bharmoji Rao in Sy.No.No.84/2 to an extent of 8 acres 6 guntas. Therefore, the plaintiff No.1, LRs of Krishnappa, plaintiff No.4 & defendants had filed suit against the legal heirs of Bharmoji Rao for the relief of cancellation of mortgage deed, declaration of title and permanent injunction in O.S.No.197/2017 on the file of the Hon’ble Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere. The said suit was ended in compromise on 22.04.2018 and in the compromise, the defendants in that suit admitted that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of land to an extent of 8 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No.No.84/2 and got cancelled the mortgage deed. Therefore, RTC was made out in favour of plaintiff No.1 late Krishnappa and his heirs and the defendants jointly. It is contended that the defendants even though they purchased the land measuring 1 acre 20
guntas only in Sy.No.No.84/2 are claiming equal rights in the suit survey number.
an extent of 8 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No.No.84/2 in favour of one Thammanna, who is son of her own uncle viz., Yaliyappa and she told the said Yaliyappa that the said property has to be divided among his brothers. Thereafter, the said Thammanna and sons of his elder brother – Gadige Chittaiah i.e., Ajjaiah, Dodda Chittaiah and Kariyappa got partitioned the said land to an extent of 8 acres 6 guntas and in the partition land to an extent of 4 acres 3 guntas was fallen to the share of Thammanna and 4 acres 3 guntas was fallen to the share of sons of Gadige Chittaiah viz., Ajjaiah, Dodda Chittaiah and Kariyappa. The defendants have denied the claim made by the plaintiff but admitted that there was a registered mortgage deed dated 13.02.1960 in favour of one B.S.Bharmoji Rao in respect of land to an extent of 8 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No.84/2. It is averred that there was a compromise in O.S.No.1972017 and there was a compromise between the plaintiffs and defendants. Since then, they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The said Thammanna had never sold the suit property in favour of
the plaintiffs. The alleged sale deed dated 15.02.1959 is concocted, created and manipulated one. Hence, they are not entitled for any relief.
of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, formulated the following points:
record accepted the case of the plaintiffs and arrived to the conclusion that property was acquired vide sale deed dated 15.12.1959 to the extent of 8 acres 6 guntas and out of that, 1 acre 20 guntas was sold in favour of the defendants herein and they have retained 8 acres 6 guntas and for that they have claimed declaration and also the
permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the present appeal is filed.
would vehemently contend that the Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that there was a compromise between the plaintiffs and defendants in the earlier suit in O.S.No.197/2017 and erroneously comes to the conclusion that recitals of the compromise decree reveals that defendants i.e., the legal representatives of Bharmoji Rao admitted that ancestors of plaintiffs had mortgaged the suit property in favour of father of defendants under the mortgage deed dated 13.02.1960. Further, both the plaintiffs and defendants agreed for cancellation of the said mortgage deed dated 13.02.1960. Further, the defendants agreed that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit schedule property and that the defendants are not having any right in the suit property and the very approach of the Trial Court in granting the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the defendants is erroneous and it requires interference. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this court that earlier the mortgage was made in favour of Bharmoji Rao. He
also contends that if the defendants are not having any right what was the need in earlier filing the suit and compromising the matter. The said fact has not been considered by the Trial Court.
father of defendant No.2 and Kariyappa is the father of defendant No.3. The revenue entries are also found based on the compromise in O.S.No.197/2017. The mortgage deed, which was executed in favour of Bharmoji Rao was cancelled and declaratory relief was granted pursuant to the compromise. The instant suit is in respect of O.S.No.182/2020, which was filed by the respondents herein seeking the relief of the declaration only to an extent of 6 acres 26 guntas after deducting the land, which was sold in favour of the defendants to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The Trial Court having considered the very contention of the plaintiffs / respondent rightly considered the material on record and granted the relief of temporary injunction in respect of only to the extent of 6 acres 26 guntas, wherein they have claimed the relief of declaration and consequential injunction of permanent injunction. The Trial Court also considered in detail in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 how the title devolves and also the compromise entered into between the parties. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the
compromise was arrived at in the earlier decree for the relief of declaration in the said suit because, the defendants herein are also the owners to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and a decree was also granted. Though they claim that they are the owners to the extent of 4 acres 3 guntas each, no documents are placed before the court and though they claim title through the said Thammanna, the very said Thammanna sold the property in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of 8 acres 6 guntas in the year 1959 itself. The trial court arrived at a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out by the plaintiffs and hence, granted the relief.
filed by the plaintiffs and defendants against Bharmoji Rao and no doubt, Bharmoji Rao came forward in compromising the matter by relinquishing his mortgage right which was executed in favour of him in the year 1960. It is also important to note that in the said mortgage deed, the plaintiffs and defendants are parties to the said mortgage deed. It is also important to note that the appellants have not disputed the fact that an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land was purchased on 22.11.1968 and the said sale deed was in favour of Dodda Chittaih and Kariyappa. The said Dodda Chittaiah is father of defendant
No.2 and Kariyappa is the father of defendant No.3.
also inter alia sought for temporary injunction. Though it is contended by the defendants in the written statement that total extent is 9 acres 20 guntas, out of that, they have purchased 1 acre 22 guntas and they are now claiming the right in respect of remaining land to the extent of 8 acres 6 guntas. Having perused the material on record and particularly in considering the document of 1959, though defendants have disputed that the document is a fictitious document and the fact that they have purchased only to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and earlier there was a mortgage to an extent of 8 acres 6 guntas executed in favour of Bharmoji Rao, which is also not in dispute and compromise is also when they have filed the suit jointly along with the plaintiffs and in order to trace and prima facie case to an extent of 8 acres 6 guntas and also in respect of partition to the extent of 4 acres 8 guntas each is concerned, no documents are placed and having considered the material on record, the Trial Court considered the original document of the year 1959 and also subsequent document of mortgage in favour of
Bharmoji Rao dated 13.02.1960 and also the sale made in favour of Ajjaiah vide sale deed dated 06.12.11966 and also subsequent sale deed in favour of the defendants only to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas vide sale deed dated 22.11.1968. Though there was a compromise, but no specific averment is made to that effect. The documents prima facie discloses with regard to the ownership of plaintiffs and having considered the same, the Trial Court has not committed any error in granting the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs having considered the prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs
to the extent of 6.26 guntas after deduction of 1 acre 20 guntas out of 8 acres 6 guntas. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in granting the relief in favuor of the respondents / plaintiffs and when the prima facie case is made out in favour of respondents, having considered both oral and documentary evidence and pleadings on the part of the plaintiffs and defendants, I do not find any merit in the appeal to arrive to a different
NC: 2024:KHC:4616 MFA No. 1876 of 2023
conclusion than that of the Trial Court. In view of the
discussions made above, I pass the following:
O R D E R
(i) The appeal stands dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in granting temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession of the suit property.
Whether plaintiffs made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience entitling them to temporary injunction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Boramma
Erakariyappa
Krishnappa
Chittaiah
Chikkamma
Akkamma
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
