Dismissed¶80

Sri.Guruswamy v. Smt.Gopamma

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2025RSA/1232/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no error on the part of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in their concurrent findings. ¶71

Sri.Guruswamy Vs Smt.Gopamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶80

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved ownership/possession of the suit schedule property (Katha No.71) and entitlement to permanent injunction (Trial Court Issue No.1, answered affirmative). +3 more

¶49

Court's answer

Where the plaintiff establishes possession of the suit schedule property and is in possession as on the date of the suit, the Court has to grant the relief of permanent injunction (the suit being for bare injunction).

¶67

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no error on the part of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in their concurrent findings.

¶71

Key takeaways

There is no ground to admit the second appeal and frame a substantive question of law, since both facts and law were considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC (RSA No.1232 of 2025 (INJ)) dismissed at the admission stage — concurrent findings upheld and no substantive question of law framed. The plaintiff in O.S.No.392/2013 (Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, H.D.Kote; judgment and decree dated 23.04.2024) claimed ownership and possession of Katha No.71 measuring 45 x 30 feet (purchased under registered sale deed dated 06.10.1994) and sought bare permanent injunction; the Trial Court held the plaintiff owner and granted injunction, and the first appeal R.A.No.50/2024 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, H.D.Kote) was dismissed on 22.04.2025. Before the High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.; judgment dated 20.11.2025), the appellants pressed for framing of a substantive question of law, contending error in believing document entries; the Court found no error in the courts below, whose conclusions rested on sale deeds Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, revenue records (Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6), the admissions of D.W.1, and the dismissal of the defendant No.3's earlier suit O.S.No.86/2012, and reiterated that where a plaintiff proves possession as on the date of the suit, the relief of permanent injunction must follow. Second appeal dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1232 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. GURUSWAMY S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶10

SRI. CHALUVARAJU S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶11

SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI W/O NITHYANANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. NITHYANANDASWAMY S/O LATE KUNNAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶14

SMT. CHANDRAKUMARI D/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶15

ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT AMBEDKAR BEEDI 4^TH WARD, SAGAGUR TOWN SARAGUR HOBALI SARAGUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571121.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT. GOPAMMA W/O HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/T AMBEDKAR BEEDI 4^TH WARD, SARGUR TOWN SARAGUR HOBALI SARAGUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571121.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.392/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶29

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.392/2013 that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

suit schedule property bearing Katha No.71 measuring East to West 45 feet, North to South 30 feet is the vacant site wherein Mangalore tiled house situated in the extent of 12½ x 20 feet. The boundary is also disclosed in respect of the same and the same was purchased by the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 06.10.1994 for sale consideration of Rs.8,000/- from one Hanumanthaiah, the said vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed dated 29.05.1987 from one Ramesh. Having purchased the property, all the revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant without title, right or interest over the suit schedule property, causing obstructions to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and hence, filed the suit. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.3 appeared and filed the written statement wherein stated that she doesn't know that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed in the year

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

1994 and also with regard to the earlier sale deed and also denies that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possession of the suit schedule property and also the interference by the defendants. However, defendant No.3 further contended that this defendant No.3 had filed the suit against the present plaintiff and other members in O.S.No.86/2012 and interim order was granted and defendants shall not obstruct the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. But, the plaintiff has disguised the said fact and boundary of the suit schedule property is false and with an intention to grab the property of the defendant, the plaintiff has filed suit and measurement shown in the plaint is created and imaginary. This defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.86/2012 to an extent of 30 x 78 feet along with residential house. The defendant also purchased the property through a registered sale deed on 29.05.1985, since from the date of purchase, defendant No.3 is in possession of the property along with family members and constructed the building measuring

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

East to West 26 feet, North to South 28 feet and remaining place is vacant. Now, the plaintiff has filed the false case against the plaintiff and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the same.

¶39

Having considered the pleadings of both the parties, Trial Court framed the issues and also allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion with regard to the claim of the plaintiff and defendants and also taken note of registered sale deed of the year of 1987 and boundary mentioned in the earlier sale deed also extracted in paragraph No.16, so also taken note of document Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3 i.e., subsequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and so also the measurement mentioned as 45 x 30 feet in respect of Katha No.71 and so also Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 property register extracts, Katha document and affidavit issued by Pattana Panchayath. Having taken note of all these documents, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is the owner of the

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

suit schedule property to an extent of 45 x 30 feet in respect of Katha No.71 and also taken note of document stands in the name of the plaintiff and also to the extent of only 45 x 30 feet, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 also certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.86/2012 filed by the defendant No.3. On perusal of all these documents, it is the claim of the plaintiff that he is the owner to the extent of 45 x 30 feet and case of the defendant is 30 x 70 feet and even boundaries to the said suit is also mentioned in paragraph No.18 and so also taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.2 in paragraph No.20 with regard to the possession of the defendant wherein he has been in possession and the plaintiff was the defendant in O.S.No.86/2012, on clear admission, it clearly appears that property of the plaintiff is situated adjacent to the property of the defendant No.3 and the same is observed in paragraph No.21 and also the property of the defendant also in detail discussed in paragraph No.22 and in paragraph No.23 also taken note

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

of the extent of land and document Ex.D.2 certified copy

¶46

of the property tax register is standing in the name of defendant No.2 to the extent of 30 x 78 feet and in the said document, boundary also taken note and considering both oral and documentary evidence, it is very clear that Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are clearly shows strengthening the boundary to the scheduled property which plaintiff claims and the very suggestions made by the defence counsel during the course of cross-examination P.W. 1 that he had wrongly mentioned the boundary also categorically denied.

¶47

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph No.28 comes to the conclusion that the property in which defendant claims is different from property in which the plaintiff claims and plaintiff's claim only with regard to 30 x 45 feet and also the Katha property is also different and also the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed got marked at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 and boundary mentioned in the plaint schedule also corroborate with each other and answered

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the Issue No.1 as affirmative and also with regard to the defence is concerned and discussed with regard to the interference while answering Issue No.2. The suit filed by the defendant No.3 against the plaintiff came to be dismissed by observing that plaintiff has failed to prove the boundary to the property belongs to her and hence, taken note of the claim made by the defendant falsifies the same and hence, comes to the conclusion that interference by the defendant while answering Issue No.2 and plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property to the extent of 35 x 40 feet and granted the relief of permanent injunction.

¶51

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.50/2024 and considering the grounds which have been urged, formulated the point with regard to the proving of possession of the plaintiff and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and interference and point Nos.2 and 3 are answered as negative in coming to the conclusion that

¶52

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

the plaintiff has established the possession in respect of

¶55

the suit schedule property particularly considering a document Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 sale deed and also both oral and documentary evidence was taken note of. The D.W.1 also admitted about the existence of suit schedule property towards the northern side of the property of defendant No.3 and also taken note of evidence of D.W.1, he never deposed that plaintiff has given false boundaries to the suit schedule property even though defendants have raised a defence that the plaintiff has given false boundaries to the scheduled property, but to substantiate the said contention, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that it is the admitted fact that the suit filed by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.86/2012 against the plaintiff was also dismissed wherein also the defendant No.3 admitted that there exists a house on vacant site which belongs to the present plaintiff towards the northern side of the property of the present defendant No.3. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence, the First

¶56

10 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Trial Court

¶60

has not committed any error.

¶61

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the

¶62

present second appeal is filed before this Court and counsel would vehemently contend that this Court has to frame a substantive question of law that an error of law was committed by it in believing the entries in the documents which do not rise any legal presumption and also contend that suit filed before the Trial Court is not sustainable and termination of notice to the tenant in the said lease was issued any time after the said lease deed had expired and suit was instituted not within time. Hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantive question of law.

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶64

appellant and also on perusal of the reasoning of the Trial Court, particularly the plaintiff claims that the vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the property in the year 1987 and plaintiff also purchased the same in the year 1994 and

¶65

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

measurement mentioned in both the sale deed Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 is one and the same and schedule shown in the plaint also the same and also taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 in the earlier proceedings in which in the suit, the plaintiff was also a defendant and suit filed by the defendant No.3 was also dismissed in O.S.No.86/2012 in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove the boundary to the property belongs to her and having taken note of all these material, Trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has established his possession in respect of the suit schedule property particularly to the extent of 45 x 30 feet which he derived through the sale deed and when the possession is established by the plaintiff, when the suit is also filed only for the bare injunction and law is settled that if the plaintiff establishes his possession in respect of the suit schedule property, Court has to grant the relief of permanent injunction if plaintiff is in possession as on the date of the suit. In order to prove the possession, relied upon the document Ex.P.1

¶68

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

to Ex.P.13 and even relied upon the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.86/2012 which was filed against the plaintiff and the same was dismissed and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court.

¶71

The Appellate Court also re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record while answering point Nos.2 and 3. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and Appellate Court. The Appellate Court in paragraph No.29 also taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 and so also taken note of admission about the existence of suit schedule property towards the northern side of the property of the defendant No.3. In the cross-examination, he never deposed that plaintiff has given the false boundaries to the suit schedule property. When such being the case, even considered in paragraph No.30 that suit filed by the defendant No.3 was dismissed as against the plaintiff. All these materials were considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:48012 RSA No. 1232 of 2025

¶73