Smt. R. Hemalatha v. Smt. G Swarupa

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025RFA/422/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Permanent injunction suit; maintainability of bare injunction despite disputed/rival title; prior registered sale deed dated 11.03.2004 prevails over subsequent GPA dated 06.01.2005 and sale deed dated 17.11.2015; conveyance by GPA holder after principal has alienated property is void and confers no title; possession proved by katha, tax receipts, electricity bills, encumbrance certificates; Anathula Sudhakar (2008) 4 SCC 594 relied on; Karnataka High Court, RFA No. 422 of 2023, Justice K.S. Hemalekha, decided 02.09.2025; appeal dismissed, trial Court decree confirmed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 09.12.2022 in O.S.4652/2016 stand confirmed, leaving the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff intact. ¶ORDER

Smt. R. Hemalatha Vs Smt. G Swarupa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 09.12.2022 in O.S.4652/2016 stand confirmed, leaving the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff intact.

¶ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the present facts and circumstances of the case?

¶8

Court's answer

It is undisputed that the plaintiff's purchase of the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 11.03.2004 executed by the original owner S.V. Yogeshwara is prior in time to the GPA of 2005 and the defendants' sale deed of 2015.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The owner, having already alienated the suit property in 2004, could not have executed a GPA to convey the same property again.

¶9

Key takeaways

A GPA holder derives authority only to the extent of the principal's subsisting right; where the property had already been alienated, the GPA holder's acts are void and confer no title.ratio¶10
A plaintiff with a valid prior sale deed and proof of continuous possession is entitled to injunction simpliciter against a subsequent purchaser claiming under a GPA, and cannot be driven to a suit for declaration unless her title itself is genuinely clouded.ratio¶10
Where the plaintiff proves lawful possession of the suit property and alleges interference or dispossession, a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable; a rival claim by the defendant does not compel the plaintiff to seek a declaration unless her own title is under a genuine or substantial cloud (as held by the Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2022 in O.S.4652/2016 (XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City) decreeing a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff purchased site Nos. 43 and 44 in Survey No. 108 under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.2004 from the original owner S.V. Yogeshwara; the defendants claimed under a GPA dated 06.01.2005 executed by the same owner in favour of one Gangaraju and a subsequent registered sale deed dated 17.11.2015. Held: the owner having already alienated the property in 2004, he could not execute a GPA to convey it again, and the GPA holder's acts were void and conferred no title; the plaintiff proved continuous lawful possession through katha, tax receipts, electricity bills and encumbrance certificates; relying on Anathula Sudhakar (2008) 4 SCC 594, where a plaintiff proves lawful possession and alleges interference, a suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable notwithstanding a rival title claim, unless her own title is genuinely clouded. No perversity or illegality in the trial Court's judgment; Regular First Appeal dismissed and the trial Court's judgment and decree confirmed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.422 OF 2023 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. R. HEMALATHA W/O V. RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. R. MANJULA W/O V. LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE R/O NO.12, 4^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, SBM LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI MANIKANTA H.B., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT-1; SRI HARISHA A.S., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT-2)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SMT. G. SWARUPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O G. VENUGOPAL, R/AT NO.B-168, PATEL ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, BAHUBALI NAGAR, JALAHALI POST, BENGALURU-560 013.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.12.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4652/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The present Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2022 passed in O.S.4652/2016 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). The said suit was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with

¶25

her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit and permanently restrained the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have preferred the present appeal.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Plaint averments:

¶29

The plaintiff claims that she purchased site Nos. 43 and 44 in Survey No. 108 (suit schedule property) under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.2004 from the original owner S. V. Yogeshwara. It is averred that she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said site since the date of purchase, paying taxes to the CMC and later to the City Municipal Corporation and later to the BBMP, and the khatha has been changed in her name. It is averred that she has erected a compound wall around the suit property, obtained electricity connection and has consistently paid tax and utility charges. The defendants without any manner of right, title or interest attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of site No. 43 thereby compelling her to institute the present suit for permanent injunction.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Written statement averments

¶33

Defendants denied the plaintiff’s case and contended that sale deed in her favour was collusive and not binding. They stated that S. V. Yogeshwara executed a registered GPA on 06.01.2005 in favour of one Gangaraju, authorizing him to form a layout and alienate sites in Survey No. 108. Under this authority, the said GPA sold the suit schedule property to the defendants under the registered sale deed dated 17.11.2015. The defendants claim that they are lawful owners in possession of the suit property since their purchase and denied the plaintiff's possession. It is contended that the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable without declaration of title, since there was a clear cloud on the ownership and hence sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶34

The trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff's sale deed is of the year 2004, preceded the GPA of 2005. The defendants’ cross-examination admitting the katha, tax

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

paid receipts, and electricity bills stand established the plaintiff's possession. Further DW1 admitted that the plaintiff had erected a compound wall and had been paying taxes. The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants that a declaration of title was necessary, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs and Others¹ (Anathula). The trial Court held that while possession and title are clear and only interference is alleged, a suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable, and by the judgment and decree decreed the suit of the plaintiff restraining the defendants by permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, perused the material on record.

¶39

1 (2008) 4 SCC 594

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court erred in granting permanent injunction despite serious dispute regarding title. It is contended that once the defendants purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 17.11.2015 through GPA holder, the plaintiff could not claim better title merely on basis of the tax paid receipts and katha. It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the suit was not maintainable, as a bare injunction suit in the face of a clouded title, as per the principles laid down in Anathula Sudhakar (supra). It is contended that the finding that the plaintiff is in possession is contrary to the evidence on record, since the defendants had established their purchase and entitlement.

¶43

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the plaintiff’s sale deed of 11.03.2004 is prior in point of time and executed by the original owner himself, whereas the defendants rely on a subsequent GPA transaction of the year 2005, followed by

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the sale deed dated 17.11.2015. The GPA could not

¶47

convey any valid right once the owner had already alienated the property in 2004. It is contended that the plaintiff has proved continuous lawful possession by producing katha, tax receipts, electricity bills, photographs and BPMP endorsement, all of which confirm her possession. It is pointed out that DW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that the plaintiff had put up the compound wall and that she was paying taxes since beginning. It is contended that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit, holding that the suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable. Stating these grounds, learned counsel submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is,

¶49

“whether the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

favour of the plaintiff in the present facts and

¶54

circumstances of the case?

¶55

Undisputed fact is that the plaintiff’s purchase of

¶56

the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 11.03.2004, executed by the original owner, S. V. Yogeshwara, is prior in time to the subsequent GPA of 2005 and also the defendant’s sale deed of 2015. The owner had already alienated the suit property and he could not have executed a GPA to convey the same property again. Exhibit P-2-the certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 11.03.2004, Exhibits P-3 to P-19, the tax paid receipts pertaining to 2003-2004 to 2015-16, Exhibits P-25 and P-26-encumbrance certificates, Exhibit P-20 to P-24-self-assessment declaration, Exhibit P-30-the ‘B’ katha extract in the plaintiff’s name for site-43 and site-44, Exhibits P-34 to P- 37-electricity bills in the plaintiff’s name. On the other hand, the defendants produced Exhibit D-1, the original sale deed executed by GPA, Gangaraju, in favour of the

¶57

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

defendants, Exhibit D-3, the General Power of Attorney executed by S. V. Yogeshwara in favour of Gangaraju, Exhibit D-4 is the representation by defendants to the BBMP Revenue Officer seeking to pay tax and Exhibit D-5 is the endorsement issued by BBMP confirming the plaintiff

¶60

has been paying taxes. The documents produced by the plaintiff at Exhibits P-1 to P-37 indicate that the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the plaintiff proves lawful possession of the suit property and when she alleges interference or dispossession, a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable. Merely because the defendant disputes title or sets up a rival claim, does not compel the plaintiff to seek a declaration, unless the plaintiff’s own title is under a genuine or substantial clause, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra). In the said decision, the Apex Court has summarized at Para No. 21 as under:

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

“21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:

¶65

(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

¶66

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

¶67

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202]). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

¶72

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon

¶73

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”

¶76

As stated supra the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.2004 from the original owner, S. V. Yogeshwara. Once the registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff, the execution of a GPA dated 06-01-2005 by the owner in favour of Gangaraju, and pursuant to that a sale deed dated 17.11.2015 in favour of the defendants, when the owner had already sold the suit site in 2004, the GPA holder could not legally convey the property, which was no longer available with the principal. A GPA holder derives authority only to the extent that the principal had subsisting right. If the property had already been alienated, the GPA holder’s acts, are void and confer no title. The plaintiff, with a valid prior sale deed and proof of continuous possession, is entitled to injunction simplicitor

¶77

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:34339 RFA No. 422 of 2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

against subsequent purchaser claiming under GPA and cannot be driven to a declaration suit unless her title itself is genuinely clouded. The trial Court, on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, has rightly held that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court warranting any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following :

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i) The Regular First Appeal is hereby

¶82

dismissed.

¶83

(ii) The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 09.12.2022 passed in O.S.4652/2016 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, stands

¶84

confirmed.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶87

Ckl/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Smt. R. Hemalatha v. Smt. G Swarupa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. R. Hemalatha v. Smt. G Swarupa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Malathi Vs Sri. K. C. Jaganath Reddy

Sri Kanteppa Tengli Vs Sri Sridhar Dhanashri

Sri. Lakshmana Vs Sri. Aswathappa S/O Late Yellappa Since Dead Rep by His Lrs Smt Rathnamma

Smt. Syed Shahi Pasha Vs Sri. Noor Ahmed Meccai

Sri Pramod Jois M B Vs M/S Canfin Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Sri .M. Lalith Kumar Vs the Chief Commissioner