Plaintiff's suit for bare injunction over suit property was dismissed as defendants set up their own title under a registered sale deed confirmed in earlier litigation. High Court rejected additional evidence application and dismissed the second appeal, holding no substantial question arose.
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:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O G.V. VENKATAPATHI, R/AT GERAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANANTHA NARAYANA B. N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ALL ARE R/AT GERAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101.
**Inserted vide chamber order dated:19.10.2024
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.YESHU MISHRA, SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, AND SRI. MURALIDHARA K., ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND 3;
R2 DEAD AND R1 AND R3 ARE THE LR's OF R2, NOTICE TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.09.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.152/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.327/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who
is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 28.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.327/2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur,
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 26.09.2018, passed in R.A.No.152/2016, on the file of I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkaballapura.
plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property contending inter-alia that the said property originally belonged to one
Sri.G.V.Venkatapathy and his name having been reflected in the revenue records and he was paying the property tax
thereon. That on 10.02.2009, the said Sri.G.V. Venkatapathy had executed a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Ever, since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner thereof. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 having no right of any nature whatsoever in collusion with the Revenue Officers with an intention to knock off the property from the plaintiff have been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff constraining him to file the present suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
denying the plaint averments and specifically contended that the sale deed executed by the said Sri.G.V.Venkatapathy in favour of the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint is false. Neither the plaintiff nor his vendor was ever in possession of the suit property and the said document is a concocted document. It is further contended
that defendant No.3 had acquired the suit property bearing House List No.44/1, old No.314 in terms of the a deed of sale dated 04.05.1987, executed by one Sri.G.V.Pathy. It is further contended that one Sri.G.V. Nagaraj had filed a suit in O.S.No.572/1992 against the defendant which was dismissed, as against which a regular appeal in R.A.No.83/2003 was filed which was also dismissed. Against such dismissal a regular second appeal in RSA No.2475/2006 was also filed which was also dismissed. That in all these proceedings, the possession
and the enjoyment of the defendant No.3 was established. Thus it is contended that the plaintiff had not come to the
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
Court in clean hands. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
following issues for consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference from the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as sought for?
4. What order or Decree?"
other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and exhibited 3
documents marked as Exs.P1 to 3. Defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1 and exhibited 24 documents marked as Exs.D1 to 24.
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
plaintiff preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.152/2016 and
based on the pleadings, First Appellate Court framed
following points for its consideration:
" 1.Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff ?
2. Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court calls for interference?
3. Point No.3: What order or decree?"
Court confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal. Being
aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court.
appearing for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently submitted
that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court grossly erred
in dismissing the suit merely based on the stray admission
made by the plaintiff witness in which she had deposed that the suit schedule property is not in her possession,
but in the possession of her ' ¨sÁªÀ '. Learned counsel
submits that locally husband is also referred to as ' ¨sÁªÀ '.
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
However, the Trial Court and the First Appellant Court taking literal meaning of the term ' ¨sÁªÀ ' which means
brother-in-law, have come to the conclusion that plaintiff is not in possession of the property. It is further submitted that the suit property was granted by the then Block Development Officer of the defendant No.4-Panchayat. That the Hakkupatra was also issued. However due to inadvertence the Hakkupatra could not be produced before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which lapse has been taken exception to by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. He submits that the said Hakkupatra is now sought to be produced along with an application in IA No.2/2023 under Order 41 Rule of 27 of CPC. He submits that therefore, the plaintiff be given an opportunity to need further evidence by allowing the application.
decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the
First Appellate Court takes this Court through the contents of Ex.D7 which is a deed of sale under which the defendants claims to have purchased the property. He submits that the measurement and the boundaries given in the schedule to the said deed of sale leaves no doubt that the property being claimed by the plaintiff has already been conveyed in favour of defendant No.3, who in-turn sold the property in favour of defendant No.1. He also refers to the earlier round of litigation initiated by one Sri.Nagaraj against the vendor of the defendant No.1 and submit that said litigations have gone up to the Apex Court. In which, the title and possession of the defendant No.3 had been upheld and confirmed. He further submits
that taking advantage of one of the reference on the Eastern side boundaries to the schedule property, the vendor of the defendant No.3 has been playing mischief by creating documents and setting up of the title and the present suit is one such mischief played by the vendor of defendant No.3. He submits that since there is a serious dispute with regard to the title and possession of the
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
property, a suit for bare injunction of this nature is not maintainable without plaintiff seeking a comprehensive relief. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V/S P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD BY LRS. AND OTHERS)
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. He submits that no substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. As regard the application for production of the document is concerned, learned counsel also submits that no reasons are assigned non-production of the said document. Hence,
he submits that the application need not be allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
spite of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff, the Hakkupatra could not be produced before the Trial Court. Since the said document is essential and if no opportunity was granted the same would adversely affect the right of the plaintiff in respect of immovable property. It is necessary at this juncture to refer to the very case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction based on the deed of sale produced that Ex.P1. The plaintiff specifically claims that the suit schedule property was granted by the defendant No.4-Panchayat represented by its Block Development Officer in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that the suit schedule property forms part of the property purchased by defendant Nos.1 from defendant No.3, who in turn had purchased the same from one G.V.Pathy in terms of the Ex.D7. Schedule to Ex.D7 which is also extracted in the written statement reads as under:
East by :Road & Dobi Narasappa's house, Paanna's house West by : Panchayat Road
North by : Road
South by : Doddappa, Ramakrishnappa & Narayanppa's Houses
OTHERS) while laying down the principles governing the suit for permanent injunction has clarified that the mere denial of title would not create cloud over the title. However, apart from denying the title, if the defendant sets up the title in himself, a suit for bare injunction is not
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
maintainable, notwithstanding the fact that in every suit for injunction invariably the issue with regard to title has be addressed. Viewed in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, in the instant case as noted above the defendant apart from denying the title and possession of the plaintiff, has specifically set up the title in himself in himself and have claimed his possession over the property based on a registered deed of sale produced at Ex.D7 and also based on the judgments passed in earlier round of litigation. Plaintiff on the other hand, though produced the deed of sale had not produced the Hakkupatra which is claimed to have been issued in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, even if an application is allowed the same would not serve the purpose of this case as title and possession has been seriously disputed by the defendant. In that view of the matter, application filed under Order 41 Rule of 27 of CPC is rejected. No substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. Consequently appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:15950 RSA No. 117 of 2019
Needless to state, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal the plaintiff is entitled to seek comprehensive relief as would be available and permissible under law.
along with I.A.No.2/ *2019.
Sd/JUDGE
RMS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for bare permanent injunction is maintainable where the defendant sets up title in himself based on a registered sale deed.
Whether the plaintiff's application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce the Hakkupatra should be allowed.
Whether any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anathula Sudhakar v/s P.Buchi Reddy (Dead by Lrs. and Others)Relied on
(2008) 4 SCC 594 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Rathnamma
Sri. Prasanna
Sri. Gopalakrishna Gowda (dead)
Smt. M.V. Pushpamma
The Secretary, Avalagurki Grama Panchayth
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
