Second appeal in a bare injunction suit over a village house site. The High Court held neither side established title, but the plaintiff's possession was proved; the defendants derived no title under their sale deeds. The first appellate court's reversal was set aside and the trial court's decree of injunction restored.
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 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2013 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
CHIKKANNAIAH,
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, HEBBAL HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
5. RAJANAYAKA,
S/O LATE MUDDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, HEBBAL HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M SHIVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 11.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.6/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, K.R.NAGAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S. NO.103/2008 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., KRISHNARAJANAGAR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/plaintiff is before this Court
seeking for following relief:
" Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to:
i. call for records;
ii. allow this appeal by setting-aside the Judgment and decree dated 11.012.2012 passed in R.A.No.6/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at K.R. Nagar; iii. And, confirm the judgment and Decree passed on 27.01.2012 in the suit in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/2008 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), at K.R.Nagar;
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
ORDER
Heard. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal:
i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in the manner of appreciation of the documents at Ex.1 and the documents at Ex.D3, D4, D6 and 7 as against the consideration which was made by the trial Court in respect of the said documents to arrive at the conclusion with regard to the right as claimed by the plaintiff ?
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
as also the evidence in terms of crossexamination of DW-1. His submission is that there being a sale deed executed by One C.M. Siddaveerappa on 17.11.2005 as regards the aforesaid property, the plaintiff was in possession of the property and it is this possession which is sought to be interfered with by the defendants which has been admitted by DW-1 is cross-examination. The title of the property standing in name of the plaintiff, plaintiff being possession of the property, interference being admitted by the defendants the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was proper and correct and ought not to
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
have been interfered with by the First Appellate Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
made by First Appellate Court of the property to conclude that suit schedule property and the property of the subject matter Ex.D-3, D-4, D-6 and D-7 are one and the same is completely misconceived and as such the conclusion which has been arrived by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable.
the First Appellate Court which is a divergent finding than that of the trial Court is not substantiated. The appreciation of Ex.D-3, D-4, D-6 and D-7 which forms sole basis for the said divergent finding is without any basis and in that background he submits that the Second Appeal is required to be allowed and finding of the First Appellate Court is be set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
assessment of the property. The boundaries of the property purchased are given as, on the East-Government road, West-Government road, and house of Boralingegowda, South-by Government road and North-by property of Subbaiah and Government property. Insofar as
the vacant site, the boundaries are given as East-by vacant site of Mayanna Siddanayaka, West-by road, South-by Government road and North-by Government road.
are as shown as East-by backyard of Patel Subbegowda, West by-Government property, North by-road and South by-road. It is this property which has been identified and subject matter of the three sale deeds, which had been taken into consideration in respect to the property described in Ex.P-1.
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
of Subbegowda, West by- Government property, North by-road and South by-road. The plaint schedule property is bound on the East-by house property of Mayappanayaka, West-by road, North-by road and South-by road going towards burial ground.
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
predecessor in interest for ancestor Muddapanayappa the said Kariynayaka has sold the property in favour of Patel Subbegowda, who is not an ancestor of the defendants. It is
the said Subbegowda, who purchased the vacant site under Ex.D-6 from one Marinayaka. There is no evidence brought on record as to how Marinayaka acquired the title to the vacant site, even assuming Marinayaka is claiming under Karinayaka, Karinayaka had already sold his property to Patil Subbegowda. be that has if
may fact remains that both under Exs.D-6 and D-7 the house property and vacant site property was purchased by the Patel Subbegowda and
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
does not stand in the name of the defendants or
any of their predecessors in interest. Insofar as the claim of the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff claims that he purchased the said property from Siddaveerappa, however, there are no documents produced by the plaintiff to establish as to how C.M. Siddalingappa became the owner of the said land. Thus, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have established their title over the land.
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
defendant have established title, as such in a suit for bare injunction what is required to be considered is the actual factum of possession which in the present case has been established by the plaintiff. The plaintiff paying the property taxes in relation to the said property and having obtained a plan sanction, licence to construct a house from the Grampanchyat, the plaintiff going on with the construction which was interfered with by the defendants as per the admission made by the DW-1 in his crossexamination would establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the property though the plaintiff has not established the lawful possession. This possession of the plaintiff is required to be protected against any interference by the defendants, who have also not established any lawful title over the said property.
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
Appellate Court has committed an error in appreciation of the documents at Ex. D-1, D-3, D-4, D-6 and D-7, these having been considered by the trial Court in respect of the said documents and the conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court is not substantiated by examination of the said documents. Hence, I proceed to pass the following orders.
ORDER
ii) The judgment of the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.6/2020 dated 11.12.2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, at K.R. Nagar, is set-aside.
iii) The judgment and decree passed by the Civil (Junior Division) Judge, K.R. Nagar, in O.S. No.103/2008 dated 27.01.2012 is confirmed.
NC: 2024:KHC:20572 RSA No. 346 of 2013
suit are restrained from in any manner interfering with the possession of the plaintiff except in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
PTM List No.: 1 Sl No.:42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in appreciating Ex.D-3, D-4, D-6 and D-7 to conclude the defendants owned the suit schedule property?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chikkannaiah
Muddanaika
Shivaramanayaka
Kumaranayaka
Malleshanayaka
Rajanayaka
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
