Dismissed¶55

Renukamma v. B. C. Muralidhar

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2025RFA/2470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Permanent injunction suit dismissed despite admitted possession — proof of interference required and not established; insufficiency of photographic evidence (Exs.P6-P11); absence of police complaint and tenant witness; registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020, part-performance payment, legal notice to execute sale deed; pending specific performance suit O.S.No.6653/2022; Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; O.S.No.4520/2021; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of, and in possession of, the suit property. ¶44

Renukamma Vs B. C. Muralidhar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proves any interference by the defendant?

¶42

Court's answer

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of, and in possession of, the suit property.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish that her possession is lawful and that there is interference by the defendant.

¶47

Key takeaways

The plaintiff's photographs (Exs.P6 to P11) do not establish that the damage to the compound was caused by the defendant.ratio¶48
No police complaint was lodged alleging damage caused by the defendant and no tenant testimony was brought forth; in the absence of cogent material supporting the allegation of interference, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove interference.ratio¶48
The Trial Court's consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence does not warrant any interference by this Court; the point for consideration (whether the plaintiff proved interference) is answered against the plaintiff, and the Regular First Appeal is dismissed with confirmation of the Trial Court's judgment and decree.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), RFA No. 2470 of 2023 (K.S. Hemalekha, J., 06.08.2025): Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2023 in O.S.No.4520/2021 (XLII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) dismissing her suit for permanent injunction. Though the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the suit property (purchased under registered sale deed dated 25.03.1981) were undisputed, the Court held she failed to prove interference by the defendant: Exs.P6 to P11 (photographs of compound damage) did not establish that the defendant caused the damage, no police complaint was lodged, and no tenant testimony was produced. The defendant relied on a registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020 for Rs.56,00,000/- with Rs.55,00,000/- paid in part performance (Rs.5,00,000/- via RTGS to the plaintiff's son), and on the pending specific-performance suit O.S.No.6653/2022. The framed point ('whether plaintiff proves any interference by the defendant') was answered in the negative; the appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court's judgment and decree confirmed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2470 OF 2023 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RENUKAMMA W/O. LATE K.PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT: NO.310, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

B.C. MURULIDHAR S/O. LATE B.P. GOPALAKRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 EYARS, R/AT: NO.103, BRINDAVANA MODEL HOUSE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PRAKASH B N., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4520/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. AND ETC.

¶21

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff

¶25

assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2023 in O.S.No.4520/2021 on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction.

¶26

The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction, asserting ownership and possession over the suit property purchased under registered sale deed dated 25.03.1981. It is averred that plaintiff has been in lawful

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

possession and enjoyment of the suit property including a small house let out to tenants. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant in collusion with the plaintiff's son obtained an agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020 and is attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the tenants who are residing in the suit property.

¶30

The defendant contended that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property for consideration of Rs.56,00,000/- and executed a registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020. Rs.55,00,000/- was paid in part performance including Rs.5,00,000/through RTGS favouring plaintiff's son. The defendant denied interference but admitted that the plaintiff is in possession.

¶31

The Trial Court found that the plaintiff is in possession which is not disputed by answering issue No.1 in the favour of plaintiff. However, concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any interference by the defendant.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶35

submits that the Trial Court has ignored crucial evidence Exs.P6 to P11 - photographs, the damage of compound indicates interference. It is contended that the Trial Court having held that the plaintiff is in possession erred in denying injunction dismissing the suit for injunction.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the suit property, however, the suit for injunction is not maintainable in the absence of proof of interference by the defendant. It is contended that plaintiff executed registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020 in favour of the defendant, agreeing to sell the suit property for total consideration of Rs.56,00,000/-. The plaintiff having failed to perform her part of contract was issued a legal notice calling upon her to come forward to execute the sale deed. Only thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for injunction.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The respondent has already filed suit in O.S.No.6653/2022 seeking specific performance of the said agreement which is pending adjudication before competent Court. It is argued that the Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly held that no interference by defendant has been established.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶41

the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶42

'whether plaintiff proves any interference by the

¶43

defendant ?'

¶44

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property. It is the case of the defendant that the registered agreement of sale dated 14.07.2020 has been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and in part performance the sale consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- has been paid to the plaintiff, are subject matter in O.S.No.6653/2022. This is a

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish her possession is lawful and any interference by the defendant.

¶48

The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property however, from the material placed by the plaintiff herself, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove any interference by the defendant. Exs.P6 to P11 - photographs produced by the plaintiff does not establish that the damage was caused by the defendant. It is also noticed that no police complaint is lodged alleging damage caused by the defendant nor the tenant’s testimony was brought forth. In the absence of the cogent material placed by the plaintiff to support the allegation of interference, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove any interference by the defendant. The manner in which the Trial Court has considered the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference and the point for

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:30615 RFA No. 2470 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

consideration is answered accordingly. Hence, this Court

¶53

pass the following;

¶54

ORDER

¶55