Defendants appealed against reversal by the First Appellate Court of a trial court dismissal, whereby plaintiff was granted permanent injunction over a vacant site. The High Court held the earlier dismissal of defendants' injunction suit (O.S.No.272/1997) binds them on possession and found no substantial question of law.
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 AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1792 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…APPELLANTS
SMT.N.DHANALAXMI D/O NARAYANASWAMY, W/O SRINIVAS CAR DRIVER, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 1ST CROSS, SHANKARAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR 577 101
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANIKETH K.U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 15.03.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.6/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM.,CHIKKAMAGALURU., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD30.10.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.296/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR.
THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Defendants are before this Court assailing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in RA No.6/2015 dated 15.03.2016, whereby, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in OS No.296/2011 dated 30.10.2014, by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.
rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
x 20 feet of land in Sy.No.32/1AP (herein referred to as the ‘suit property’ for the sake of convenience) bounded with the following boundaries:
East: Vacant land of Basheer,
West: Haneefabi’s House,
South: Road (Newly formed)(earlier Upendra’s Garage), North: Road (Newly formed)(Earlier Bylusetty’s land)
the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 13.12.1993 and from the date of purchase, she is in possession of the suit property. It is contended that the defendants had filed a suit against the plaintiff herein for relief of injunction in O.S.No.272/1997 in respect of the very same property and the said suit was dismissed holding that the defendants are not in possession of the suit property, that the defendants, without having right, title and interest over the suit property, are interfering with the plaintiff’s possession.
their written statement, inter alia, contending that since 14.09.1984, they are in possession of the suit property and at no point of time, the plaintiff is in possession. It is stated that even though the suit in OS. No.272/1997 filed by the defendants for injunction was dismissed, they are in possession of the suit property.
framed the following issues;
1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs of permanent injunction as prayed?
4. What order or decree?
examined herself as PW1 and marked documents at Ex.P1
NC: 2024:KHC:30663 RSA No. 1792 of 2016
to P7. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined
herself as DW1 and marked documents at Ex.D1 to D3.
establish her possession over the suit property by placing cogent evidence along with the boundaries. That the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, further, the suit property shown in O.S.No.272/1997 is totally different from the suit property shown in the present suit and the dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the defendantsappellants in O.S.No.272/1997 would not come to the aid of the plaintiff to be entitled for relief of permanent injunction.
drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment in O.S. No.272/1997 preferred by defendant No.1, states that the suit property involved in the present suit and the suit property in O.S. No.272/1997 are one and the same and though the Trial Court gives a finding to the said effect, however erroneously has held that the dismissal of the suit in O.S.NO.272/1997 would not mean that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel submits
that the First Appellate Court being the last-fact finding Court has rightly re-appreciated and reconsidered the entire oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective and the same does not warrant any interference under Section 100 CPC and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
“Whether the judgment and decree in O.S.No.272/1997 has binding force on the parties to the present suit?”
East-West : remaining vacant land of the
same survey number; North : land belonging to Bylusetty; South : Upendra’s Garage
is an extent of 75 feet x 20 feet and the given boundaries
as under:
East : Vacant land of Basheer West : Haneefabi’s House South : newly formed road (earlier Upendra’s Garage), North : Road (Newly formed)(Earlier Bylusetty’s land)
No.1-Haneefabi was in respect of the schedule property to
the extent of east-west 20 feet and north-south 75 feet.
The boundaries shown in the said suit is as below:
East: Remaining land in Sy.No.32. West: House of the plaintiff North: Formerly land of Bylusetty and now road South: New Road and thereafter the garage of one Sri Upendra.
NC: 2024:KHC:30663 RSA No. 1792 of 2016
other hand, the plaintiff has produced Ex.D.5 in O.S.No.272/1997, which indicates she has put up her fence covering the property towards the east and northsouth direction with a barbed fence. The judgment and decree in OS No.272/1997 has been decreed in the year 2003 and the said judgment has attained finality against the defendants herein. The plaintiff, by describing the suit property has indicated that the boundaries have changed due to period of time and there is a difference in the property boundaries which undisputedly is the claim of the defendants in OS No.272/1997.
NC: 2024:KHC:30663 RSA No. 1792 of 2016
ORDER
stands confirmed.
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment and decree in O.S.No.272/1997 has binding force on the parties to the present suit?
Whether any substantial question of law arises for interference under Section 100 CPC with the First Appellate Court's decree of permanent injunction?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Hanifabi @ Sundari W/o Late Mohammed Ghouse @ Meenu Ghouse
Aziz Basha S/o Late Mohammed Ghouse @ Meenu Ghouse
Smt. N. Dhanalaxmi D/o Narayanaswamy, W/o Srinivas
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
