Crossing injunction suits over adjoining portions of Sy.No.47, Srigandadakaval, Bangalore: appeals against dismissal of one suit and decreeing the other were both dismissed after court re-established property identity from sale deeds, vendor affidavit and admitted sketches, confirming possession of respondent purchaser.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:9558 RFA No. 950 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 951 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 950 OF 2012 (PAR/INJ)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2012 (PAR/INJ) IN RFA NO.950/2012:
BETWEEN:
SMT HONNAMMA, W/O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO. 371,MARUTHI NILAYA, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560094, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI H S BASAVARAJAIAH, S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS'
Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:9558 RFA No. 950 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 951 of 2012
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MARUTHI NILAYA, SUNKADA KATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 091. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 31.05.2017).
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B V KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S N PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
DR. USHA RANI, W/O DR.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.3793, 13TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI G L VISHWANATH, SR. COUNSEL, FOR SMT MANASA AND SRI V.C.RAJU, ADVOCATE'S FOR C/R (CP.NO.764/2012) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.05.2012 PASSED IN O.S.3109/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO.951/2012:
BETWEEN:
- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9558 RFA No. 950 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 951 of 2012
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS'
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MARUTHI NILAYA, SUNKADA KATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 091. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 31.05.2017).
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S N PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. USHA RANI, W/O DR.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.3793, 13TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE-560070.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G L VISHWANATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT MANASA AND SRI V C RAJU, ADVOCATE'S FOR C/R (CP NO.763/2012))
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.05.2012 PASSED IN O.S.5611/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
"All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.47, New No.47/1B, situated at Srigandadakaval village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now coming under the Rajarajeswari Nagar Ward of the BBMP, measuring East to West 175 + 185, and North to South 140+120/2, bounded on the:
East by : Road, West by : Road, North by : Portion of property in Sy. No.47/1B South by : T. Prakash's property."
filed by the respondent in both appeals. The description of
the property in the said suit is as under:
"All that piece and parcel of Site No.1, bearing Khatha No.2524/2576, situated in Sy.No.47/1B, (Old No.47); Srigandhadakaval village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 60 feet and bounded on :
| East by | : | Site No.2 (belonging to Smt. Sumithra Plaintiffs mother) |
|---|---|---|
| West by | : | Tar Road, |
| North by | : | 20 Feet Road, |
| South by | : | Remaining property of |
| Smt. Puttahonamma." |
No.5611/2011 is decreed in terms of the aforementioned
common judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment and
decree, the plaintiff in O.S. No.3109/2008 has filed RFA No.950/2012 and the defendants in O.S. No.5611/2011 has filed RFA No.951/2012.
for the appellant and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, both appeals are taken up together for final hearing.
No.3109/2008 and defendant in O.S. No.5611/2011. The respondent is defendant in O.S. No.3109/2008 and plaintiff in O.S. No.5611/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the appellant and the respondent.
6. Certain admitted facts are as under:-
One Timmakka was the propositus and she had two
daughters namely Puttahonnamma and Lakshmidevamma. Admittedly, there was a partition on 08.05.1967 under a registered partition deed. The said document is marked as
Ex.D1. In the said partition, Puttahonnamma acquired 11 acres 38 guntas of property in Survey No.47 and the respondent claims that she has purchased the suit property in O.S. No.5611/2011 under a registered sale deed dated 09.12.1991 executed by Puttahonnamma.
respect of the property which is purchased under the registered sale deed dated 09.12.1991. The registered sale deed dated 09.12.1991 is marked at Ex.D6. This is the document under which, the respondent is claiming possession over the property. The plaintiff is claiming possession over the property under the registered partition deed dated 03.06.2006 marked at Ex.P5.
extent of the property sold is invalid. It is also his contention that the description of the property with reference to the boundary is clearly demonstrated from the document produced by the plaintiff i.e., the registered partition deed dated 03.06.2006. In the said partition deed, it is stated that the northern boundary of the property allotted to the share of the appellant is the property sold by the appellant's mother. Thus, he would contend that the appellant's mother has admitted the sale and the said sale is in favour of the respondent. It is also his submission that the identity of the property is established on the basis of three more sale deeds namely Ex.D24 to 26.
NC: 2024:KHC:9558 RFA No. 950 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 951 of 2012
identity of the property is established as the vendor herself has made a statement that she has sold the portion of Survey No.47 in Srigandakavalu, Sunkadakatte village. The reference to two villages namely Srigandakavalu as well as Sunkadakatte is made in the sale deed also. It is not the case of the appellant that the property sold to respondent by the appellant's mother is located in some other survey number. On reappreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record, the inevitable inference is that the appellant is also admitting that the mother of the appellant has sold a property to the respondent in Sy.No.47. This being so, this Court is of the view that the fact that portion of Sy.No.47 is sold under the sale deed of 1991 is established.
behalf of the defendants. These are the properties sold in the Survey No.47 owned by the mother of the plaintiff. The recital in the said sale deed particularly, the description on the southern side would indicate that the property sold in Survey No.47 is bounded on the southern side by 20 feet road. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim right over the said portion which is sold to the purchaser under Exs.D24 and D25 and also cannot claim any right over the 20 feet road which is located to the southern side of the properties sold to the purchaser in Exs.D24 and D25.
"All that piece and parcel of old Sy.No.48, New No.47/1 B, situated at Srigandadakaval village, Yeshwanhapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now carrying under the Rajarajeswari Nagar Ward of the BBMP, measuring East to West 175 + 105/2, and North to South 140+120/2, bounded on the:
East by : Road, West by : Road, North by : Portion of property in
Sy. No.47/1B South by : T. Prakash's property."
northern portion of the property allotted to the share of the appellant was sold prior to the partition of the year 2006.
sketch is located to the south of the property said to have been purchased by the respondent. In the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent, it is seen that on the north the property sold, there is a 20 feet road and on the south, the property of the vendor. In the sketch at Ex.D.3 which is admitted to be correct by PW1 in the cross examination, the northern portion of respondent's property is shown as 20 feet road. Thus, it can be concluded that the property of the respondent is located to the south of 20 feet road and to the north of the property of the appellant.
which is referred to in Ex.D3 and Ex.D4, the survey sketches. These documents are also confronted to PW-1
and he has admitted in the cross examination that he can identify the location of the property of the respondent in the said sketch.
the materials placed on record, it can be inferred that the respondent is the first purchaser of the property from the mother of the appellant.
deed. If at all there was any dispute relating to the identification of the property and if at all, the appellant is to contend that the property mentioned in the sale deed is not the property over which the respondent is now claiming possession then, it was for the appellant to examine the mother who was the best witness as she was
a party to the said transaction. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the mother of the appellant has not entered the witness box. This is one of the strong circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court to hold that the appellant has failed to establish his possession. If the property sold by the appellant's mother was different from the one claimed by the respondent, then the appellant should have examined her mother to prove as to which property is sold to the respondent.
appellant. Based on these materials and also Ex.D.24 to D.26, the Trial Court has concluded that the respondent is
in exclusive possession of the suit property.
Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives Vs Maniben jagmalbhai (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 128 has held that in case the identity of the property is not established, the suit for injunction without appropriate relief of declaration of title is not maintainable.
established, the suit for injunction is not maintainable and unless a relief of possession is sought, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Again the principle laid down in the present judgment does not come to the aid of the appellant as this Court is agreeing with the view of the Trial Court which has held that the respondent is in possession of the property based on a registered sale deed. The Trial Court has assigned valid reasons. The finding of the Trial Court is based on acceptable evidence and this Court has given a finding that the respondent has established his possession. Accordingly, the aforementioned judgment does not come to the aid of the appellant.
ORDER
and the appeal in R.F.A.No.951/2012 (arising out of O.S. No.5611/2011) is also dismissed.
ii) The judgment and decree dated 21.05.2012 passed by XXIV Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore City (CCH-6) in O.S. No.3109/2008 and O.S. No.5611/2011 are confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in holding the respondent proved possession of the property in O.S. No.5611/2011.
Whether injunction suits could be upheld without survey-based identification of the disputed property's boundaries.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jharkhand State Housing Board vs Didar Singh And AnotherDistinguished¶30
(2019) 17 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy vs M. Mallappa and AnotherDistinguished¶31
(2021) 13 SCC 135 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Honnamma (since deceased, by her LRs)
H S Basavarajaiah
H B Mahesh Kumar
Sri H B Nagesh
Sri H B Sanjeevegowda
Dr Usha Rani
Anant Ramanath Hegde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
