Dismissed¶¶64

Sri T Kariyappa v. Sri P v Damodar

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025RFA/103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Permanent injunction; settled possession; possession protected even against true owner until due-process eviction; possession suit maintainable despite disputed title where declaration suit O.S.No.3576/2007 pending; proof of possession by khata, tax receipts, BDA notice and possession certificate; appeal by defendant under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC dismissed; decree in O.S.No.16949/2006 confirmed; High Court of Karnataka, RFA No. 103 of 2023, Justice K.S. Hemalekha, decided 03.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 in O.S.No.16949/2006 stand confirmed. ¶¶64

Sri T Kariyappa Vs Sri P v Damodar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 in O.S.No.16949/2006 stand confirmed.

¶¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in granting a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, subject to outcome of O.S.No.3576/2007, when the defendant disputes title?

¶¶57

Court's answer

In a suit for injunction, the Court has to primarily consider the materials to indicate whether the plaintiff has produced sufficient materials to show that he is in possession of the schedule property.

¶¶61

Ratio / Principle

A settled possession can be protected even against a true owner until eviction is by due process of law.

¶¶62

Key takeaways

The plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the scheduled property since 1994, as shown by the BDA notice issued in 2003 (Ex.P12), khata (Ex.P17), tax paid receipts (Ex.P2 and P3) and possession certificate (Ex.P16).ratio¶¶58
The appellant has not produced any corroborative evidence to indicate that he is in possession of the schedule property.ratio¶¶58
The defendant has already filed a comprehensive title suit in O.S.No.3576/2007, and the plaintiff's possession cannot be disturbed until that suit is decided.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Injunction suit — settled possession protected pending title suit. The defendant's Regular First Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC against the decree of permanent injunction in O.S.No.16949/2006 was dismissed and the trial Court's judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 confirmed. Held: in a suit for injunction the Court confines itself to possession, not title; the plaintiff's continuous possession since 1994 was established by the BDA notice of 2003 (Ex.P12), khata (Ex.P17), tax paid receipts (Ex.P2 and P3) and possession certificate (Ex.P16); the appellant produced no corroborative evidence of his own possession; settled possession can be protected even against a true owner until eviction by due process of law; possession cannot be disturbed until the defendant's pending declaration suit O.S.No.3576/2007 is decided; the decree determines no title and expressly keeps the parties' rights open, so the appellant suffers no prejudice.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.103 OF 2023 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI T. KARIYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.97, RACHENAHALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU-560 045. …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI P.V. DAMODAR S/O P.R. VENKAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.124, II CROSS, VARMA LAYOUT, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 057. …RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16949/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE 73^RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, DECREEING SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

¶16

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.16949/2006 on the file of LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) (‘trial Court’ for short), whereby the trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

¶22

Plaint averments :

¶23

The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and in settled possession of Site No.215, House No.172-1870/A, situated at Rachenahalli, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru (‘suit property’ for short), having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.09.1994. It is stated that the site forms part of the layout developed by the Post and Telecommunication Department Employees Cooperative Housing Society (‘Society’ for short), of which he is a member, and after purchase he has secured khata, paid taxes, obtained possession certificate and has been in peaceful possession since then.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

The plaintiff contends that the defendant is a total

¶27

stranger to the scheduled property, falsely claiming title over a portion of Sy.No.105/2 and attempted to trespass upon the suit property. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession, claiming continuous lawful possession.

¶28

The written statement averment :

¶29

The defendant denies the plaintiff's title and possession and asserts that Site No.215 forms part of Sy.No.105/2, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, which originally belonged to Muniyamma and was conveyed under a continuous chain of registered sale deeds from 1953 until 1974, culminating in absolute ownership of the entire land by Smt. Puttamma, who subsequently conveyed 19 guntas to the defendant’s wife, Parvathamma, through a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2007. It is stated that neither the society nor his alleged GPA holder, Lokesh had any right, title or interest in Sy.No.105/2 and therefore the plaintiff's sale deed dated 24.09.1994 is void, hollow and non est .

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is stated that the plaintiff is neither owner nor

¶33

in possession. That the layout plan does not disclose any supporting acquisition by the society, and that the plaintiff knowingly has filed the present suit for permanent injunction. The defendant, being the children of Parvathamma, have succeeded to her estate after her death in the year 2015.

¶34

Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined

¶35

himself as PW.1 and marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and marked documents at Ex.D1 to D12.

¶36

The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiff sought only an injunction and therefore the scope of the suit did not require adjudication of title and restricted itself to examine the settled possession. The trial Court concluded that the plaintiff has been in settled possession since 1994 supported by sale deed, khata, BDA correspondence, tax receipts and possession certificate and that the defendant has already

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

filed O.S.No.3576/2007 seeking for declaration of title against the present plaintiff, and conclusive findings regarding title must emerge only in that suit. The trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction subject to final outcome of O.S.No.3576/2007, keeping open the rights of both the parties to establish title in the pending declaration suit. Aggrieved by which, the defendant is before this Court.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶41

learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sale deed dated 24.09.1994 is void and non est . As the alleged vendor, Munikadrappa had no title in Sy.No.105/2 after 1968-69 and therefore neither the Munikadrappa nor his alleged GPA holder, Lokesh had authority to form a layout or convey Site No.215. It is further contended that the Society never owned any portion of Sy.No.105/2. The layout plan Ex.P18 does not disclose survey numbers. Hence, the layout is unsubstantiated. It is contended that the

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

defendant's chain of title is complete and unbroken. Sy.No.105/2 (1 acre 6 guntas) pass through a registered sale deed is culminating in ownership of Puttamma, who inturn sold the property to Parvathamma, wife of the appellant in 2007 (Ex.D7). Thus, the appellant's family is the absolute owner of the suit property. That the plaintiff has not proved the settled possession. The documents produced to show his possession are fabricated to project an illusion of possession.

¶46

It is contended that when a title is seriously disputed a bare suit is not maintainable and the decree subject to O.S.No.3576/2007 is legally unsustainable. It is contended that the appellant is a true title holder and therefore no injunction can be issued in favour of the plaintiff.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff has derived title through Munikadrappa, mutation entries, conversion order dated 16.04.1992 (Ex.P19) and the GPA dated 21.10.1991

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(Ex.P20) established that Munikadrappa was in lawful possession of Sy.No.105/2A. Based on this GPA, Samprani Enterprises formed a layout containing more than 200 sites including Site No.215 and the plaintiff purchased the suit property under a valid registered sale deed dated 24.09.1994 (Ex.P1) and that the Society issued a possession certificate (Ex.P16) and a proforma declaration (Ex.P11). It is contended that the petitioner has khata in his favour, tax has been paid and other revenue shows that the plaintiff has been in uninterrupted possession. It is his contention that in the year 2003, BDA issued notice (Ex.P12) calling upon the plaintiff to submit documents since Sy.No.105/2A and adjoining survey numbers were proposed for acquisition and the BDA recognized the plaintiff's documents which strengthens his possession claim. It is submitted that O.S.No.3576/2007 filed by the defendant is a title suit and therefore the possession must be protected until the rights are adjudicated there. The decree does not confer title on plaintiff merely it protects possession. He submits that there

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the trial Court warranting any interference by this Court.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶56

the point that arises for consideration is:

¶57

Whether the trial Court was justified in granting a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, subject to outcome of O.S.No.3576/2007, when the defendant disputes title?

¶58

The suit of the plaintiff is for injunction. The trial Court confined itself to determining possession and not title. The plaintiff's claims possession since 1994, the BDA notice issued in the year 2003 (Ex.P12), khata (Ex.P17), tax paid receipts (Ex.P2 and P3), possession certificate (Ex.P16) shows continuous possession over the scheduled property. The appellant has not produced any corroborative evidence to indicate that the appellant is in possession of the schedule property. The defendant has already filed a title suit, which is a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.3576/2007 and the possession cannot be disturbed until the suit is decided. The

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

law is well settled that in a suit for injunction, the Court has to primarily consider the materials to indicate that whether the plaintiff has produced sufficient materials to show that he is in possession of the schedule property.

¶62

The Courts have consistently held that a settled possession can be protected even against a true owner until eviction is by due process of law. The decree of the trial Court does not prejudice the defendant's right in the title suit. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence has rightly confined itself to determining possession and not title. The findings of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court. The decree does not determine title and expressly keeps the rights open. Hence, the appellant does not suffer any prejudice. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶65

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:50838 RFA No. 103 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ii. The judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 in O.S.No.16949/2006 on the file of LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru stands confirmed .

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶70

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

Sri T Kariyappa v. Sri P v Damodar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Kariyappa v. Sri P v Damodar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkateshappa M Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishakanta N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Radhika Chakrapani Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa E Vs the State of Karnataka

Chrysolite Property Developments Private Limited Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Mahadeva C Vs State of Karnataka