Dismissed¶36

Smt M B Lalitha v. Sri Jayram

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2025RSA/1203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 1203 of 2024 (INJ), High Court of Karnataka, decided 06.08.2025 by Justice V Srishananda. Bare-injunction suit (O.S.No.365/2007); first appeal RA.No.124/2022 reversed trial decree; RSA dismissed at admission stage on respondents' memo; key principle: settled possession cannot be disturbed without due process of law; respondents granted liberty to take possession through lawful proceedings. Statute: Section 100 CPC. No precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are at liberty to take possession of the property by initiating necessary proceedings in accordance with law. ¶36

Smt M B Lalitha Vs Sri Jayram — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30621 RSA No. 1203 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1203 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M. B. LALITHA W/O H. B. BANDI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING I D. NO.2681, VIMA NIVASA, KALLAHALLI, B. M. ROAD, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. Y. K. NARAYANA SHARMA., ADVOCATE (VC) )

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. JAYRAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE. GIRIYAPPA,

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA,

¶15

SMT. MANGALA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA,

¶16

RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT NO.12, IV CROSS, IV MAIN, JAYANAGARA, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 014.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:30621 RSA No. 1203 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MILASH ARROL NORANHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED IN RA.NO.124/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2020 PASSED IN O.S.No.365/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo, which reads as under:

¶26

“ The respondents most respectfully submit that the present appeal may be disposed-off with the liberty to the parties to seeking appropriate relief/s before the Jurisdictional Civil Courts with respect to the Schedule Property forming the subject matter of the present appeal without prejudice to their rights in the same. ”

¶27

Though the intention of the respondents is to take

¶28

possession of suit property with due process of law, the contents of the memo are not properly worded.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30621 RSA No. 1203 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Since the suit is filed for the relief of bare injunction

¶32

which is the subject matter to be considered in this appeal, taking note of the rival contentions of the parties and also taking note of the possession whether legal, lawful or otherwise of the appellant, any person who is in settled possession of the property cannot be disturbed from the said property without due process of law. As such, appeal can be disposed of by directing the respondents to take possession of the suit property in accordance with law which would meet the ends of justice.

¶33

4. Accordingly, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶36

However, the respondents are at liberty to take the possession of the property by initiating necessary proceedings in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶38