Revision appeal dismissed. Court held that seeking injunction without a prayer for title declaration when title is challenged is contrary to Anathula Sudhakar case law. Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law exists.
Appeal dismissed under Section 100 of CPC; no substantial question of law framed.
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:39353 RSA No. 506 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAKSHITH JOIS Y.P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P N HARISH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC,1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 14.11.2017 PASSED IN RA.NO.10/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., SHIVAMOGGA ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED17.10.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.419/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
NC: 2024:KHC:39353 RSA No. 506 of 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
and decree dated 14.11.2017 in R.A. No.10/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2015 in O.S No.419/2010 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shimogga decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
unauthorised possession of the Sl. No.2 of the schedule property and therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff has perfected his title in respect of the suit schedule property at Sl. No.2. It is further stated that, the defendant without any right or title in respect of the suit schedule property, interfered with the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiff has filed O.S. No.419/2010 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant.
NC: 2024:KHC:39353 RSA No. 506 of 2018
the First Appellate Court has not considered the grant certificate issued by the competent authority as per Ex.P5 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the materials on record rightly, interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and accordingly, sought for disposal of the suit.
record and taking into account the averments made in the written statement where the defendant has disputed the title of the plaintiff in the written statement and in that view of the matter, the appellant/plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration and seeking mere relief of injunction is contrary to law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.
Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs. and Others1 . In that view of the matter, since the plaintiff and therefore, has not
1 (2008) 4 SCC 594
NC: 2024:KHC:39353 RSA No. 506 of 2018
sought for the relief of declaration despite the defendant questioned the title of the plaintiff the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission as no substantial question of law is required to be framed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court was correct in setting aside the trial court's decree since the plaintiff sought an injunction without claiming a declaration of title despite the defendant challengi
Whether the appellant is entitled to file a revision under Section 100 of CPC since no substantial question of law arises.
Whether the First Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court was justified on merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi ReddyDistinguished¶39
1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P KANNAPPA
M CHANDAN
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
E.S.INDIRESH
Parties & counsel
