In this regular second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction, the High Court held that the appellant failed to prove possession over the disputed property. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the lower courts' findings were confirmed.
The appeal was dismissed, judgment and decree of courts below confirmed, no order as to costs.
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 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1448 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K RANGANATHA S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KALLUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 120
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA B N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI K C RAMESH S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.80, 2ND CROSS GOVINDRAJ NAGAR BANGALORE-560040
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.10.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO. 03/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO. 2/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., NELAMANGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2020, passed in R.A.No.3/2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala and the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.2/2009 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.
Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that his house was submerged in Manchanabele Reservoir and the Government of Karnataka granted site No.46 in Sy.No.20 of Kadabagere village, Dasanapura
hobli, Bengaluru North taluk, measuring east to west 60 ft,
north to south 40 ft. The said site was granted in the name of plaintiff's father, as he was eldest member in the family. The suit schedule property was not alienated by the plaintiff's family to any person. The plaintiff and their family members are in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant is having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. The defendant illegally tried to interfere in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff lodged a complaint to the police, but the police have not taken any action. Hence a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction.
the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit site was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father but denies that the suit schedule property is a joint family property of the plaintiff and his family members. It is contended that the defendant is the absolute owner and in
NC: 2024:KHC:42142 RSA No. 1448 of 2021
possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that suit schedule property was allotted in favour of the father of the plaintiff as per Hakkupathra dated 13.05.1972. The father of the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney and affidavit in favour of Smt.Radha and Padma as per GPA dated 25.04.1999. The plaintiff and his brothers are also witnesses to the GPA executed by his father. The plaintiff's father received the sale consideration amount and executed a GPA and affidavit in favour of Smt.Radha and Padma and took them in possession of the suit schedule property and executed a registered sale deed
dated 28.08.2006. The defendant, by virtue of the registered sale deed, became the owner of the suit schedule property. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. On these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:42142 RSA No. 1448 of 2021
decree passed in the above-said suit, filed an appeal in R.A.No.3/2018 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, on re-assessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, has filed this second appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:42142 RSA No. 1448 of 2021
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
the defendant colluding with his wife, sister-in-law and father-in-law created documents. He submits that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff, and after his demise, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. The courts below failed to consider the documents produced by the plaintiff. The impugned judgments passed by the courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff, it does not reflect that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, reiterated the written statement averments in the examination in chief and produced Ex.D1 is the registered sale deed, which discloses that the defendant had purchased the suit schedule property from one Smt. Radha and Padma, who are the GPA holders of the plaintiff's father. The defendant, in order to prove his possession over the suit schedule property, has produced revenue records marked as Exs.D2 to 5, which reveals that the suit site stands in the name of the defendant and also produced the tax paid receipts and license obtained from the Machohalli gram panchayath. The plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit. It is wellestablished principle of law that in a suit for a bare injunction, the Court is required to see the possession and interference as on the date of institution of the suit. As observed above, the plaintiff has failed to establish his
possession over the suit schedule property. Both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal.
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The judgments and decrees passed by the
courts below are hereby confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.A, if
any, does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
sks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff established possession over the suit schedule property at the time of suit institution.
SRI. K RANGANATHA
SRI K C RAMESH
ASHOK S.KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
