Plaintiff sued for permanent injunction after buying 2 acres from defendants by registered sale deed; both lower courts found he was in possession with defendants interfering. The High Court found no perversity or substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and dismissed the second appeal.
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 H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2022 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT NALLURU VILLAGE, SHRIRANGALA POST KUSHALNAGHAR KODAGU DISTRICT 571232
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH (BY SRI HARSHA G, ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
…APPELLANTS
SRI VEERUPAKSHA S V S/O SRI T.V VEERANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT SHRIRANGALA VILLAGE KOTE, KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI SOMVARPETE TALUK- 571235
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. BINDU U, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:20378 RSA No. 615 of 2022
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.2/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMAWARPETE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
schedule property in his name and the records are maintained by the concerned gram panchayat and same is pending for consideration. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that after the alienation of the suit schedule property, the defendants have lost their right over the same. Inspite of that the defendants used to cause obstruction over the peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff lodged a criminal complaint against the defendants and the case has been registered against the defendants for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is also the contention that one Rangaraju had also filed a suit for the recovery of earnest money in O.S.No.22/2016 and the same is also pending for consideration. It is also the contention that with great difficulty, the plaintiff resisted the illegal act of the defendants and without any other alternative, filed the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:20378 RSA No. 615 of 2022
statement denying all the averments with regard to the handing over the possession of the suit schedule property under the document of sale deed. It is also contended that the suit schedule property was not surveyed and demarcated, thus, the possession was not delivered to the plaintiff, hence, the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. Under such circumstances, the question of trespassing over the suit schedule property also does not arise. The defendants are in continuous possession of the suit schedule property.
of the parties, framed the following Issues:
4. What order or decree?
of the parties, allowed them to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P7. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and also examined one witness as DW2. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the sale deed; delivery of possession and interference by the defendants and granted the relief of permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendants.
grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the following Points:
the Trial Court it requires interference?
4. What order or decree?
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taking into note of the boundaries which has been mentioned in the sale deed as well as the answer elicited
from the mouth of PW1 as well as DW1 comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of both the
NC: 2024:KHC:20378 RSA No. 615 of 2022
Courts, the defendants are before this Court filing the second appeal.
vehemently contend that when there is a clear admission on the part of PW1 that the matter was compromised for re-conveying the documents and out of sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and not come forward to execute the documents. This admission was not taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and thereby, both the Courts have committed an error in passing the judgment and decree. Thus, this Court has to admit the appeal framing the substantial questions of law. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
at Ex.P1 by the defendants and also in order to prove his possession, the plaintiff has produced the documents at Ex.P1 to P7. Both the Courts have taken note of the sale deed as well as delivery of possession and rightly come to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and not committed any error and it does not require any interference.
plaintiff was agreed to re-convey the property and out of re-conveyance of Rs.7 lakh, an amount of Rs.2 lakh was paid and not come forward to execute the re-conveyance deed. When the material discloses that already sale deed was executed and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and delivery of possession is also found in the recital of the sale deed, if any such panchayat and settlement, the Court has to take note of the legal evidence available on record i.e., the sale deed at Ex.P1 and other documents at Ex.P2 to P7. On the other hand, defendants/appellants have not produced any documents except examining two witnesses as DW1 and DW2. Under such circumstances, the Court has to look into the legal evidence available on record while granting the relief of permanent injunction and on perusal of the records, it discloses that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and the same has been taken note of by both the Courts. The scope is very limited in the second appeal and only if there is any perversity and any substantial question of law
is involved in deciding the issue between the parties, then only this Court can frame the substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. But in the case on hand, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial questions of law when both the Courts have considered the material on record in a proper perspective.
Hence, there is no merit in the appeal.
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the substantial question of law existed to admit a second appeal against concurrent findings affirming the plaintiff's possession and injunction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivanna N E
S S Durgesh
Veerupaksha S V
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
