Smt Thrupthi Shetty Vs Smt. Rathi Shetti — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Thrupthi Shetty Vs Smt. Rathi Shetti — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the second appeal was disposed of with the concurrent findings undisturbed, subject to the observation that this Court's findings will not preclude a fresh suit by the appellant for declaration or partition based on her late husband's sale-deed title.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved possession and enjoyment of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties so as to sustain the decree for permanent injunction, i.e., whether the courts below erred in so concluding. +1 more

Court's answer

In a suit for bare injunction the enquiry is confined to possession; the plaintiff having established possession, neither the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court erred in considering the evidence and decreeing injunction, the scope of such a suit being very limited.

Ratio / Principle

D.W.1 (the defendant/appellant) categorically admitted in cross-examination that although she was earlier in possession, she was not in possession at the time of filing of the suit; her claim to possession therefore failed.

Key takeaways

P.W.1's admission that 'B' schedule property (10 guntas in Sy.No.166) is government land in her unauthorised possession went unanswered, the defendant having not spoken anything on it.ratio¶9
Protective observation: the findings/observations recorded in this judgment shall not come in the way of the appellant instituting a fresh suit claiming comprehensive relief (declaration or partition and separate possession) founded on the title under her late husband's registered sale deed.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Permanent injunction – mother-in-law v. daughter-in-law – suit 'A' schedule (house, shop, hotel, Sy.No.166) and 'B' schedule (claimed 10-gunta encroached portion) – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held plaintiff in possession; D.W.1 admitted she was not in possession when the suit was filed. Held: in a suit for bare injunction the court looks only into possession; possession being established, no error in the concurrent decrees; the sale deed (Ex.D.1) and mutation (Ex.D.3) in the name of the appellant's late husband did not warrant interference where no suit for cancellation or comprehensive relief had been filed. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC disposed of with an observation that the findings will not bar a fresh suit by the appellant for declaration or partition based on the sale-deed title. (High Court of Karnataka, H.P. Sandesh J., 24.11.2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1354 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT. THRUPTHI SHETTY, W/O LATE RAVISHEKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAMANE, HARIHARAPURA POST, KOPPA TALUK-577 120.

&APPELLANT

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. RATHI SHETTI, W/O LATE SHEKARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O SAMPEKOLALU, MENASE POST, SRINGERI TALUK-577 139.

&RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA, ITINERATE, SRINGERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2022 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINGERI.

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

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This second appeal is filed by the

appellant/defendant against the concurrent finding.

The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, who is the wife of plaintiff9s son late Ravishekar Shetty @ S. Ravikumar and that suit 8A9 schedule property in Sy.No.166, which is morefully described in the schedule, consists of house, shop and hotel described as 8A9 schedule and towards the northern side of suit 8A9 schedule property, the plaintiff has encroached the agricultural land which is described as suit 8B9 schedule property and that the plaintiff is in possession of 8A9 and 8B9 schedule property since 50 years and there is a 10 guntas of land towards northern side of 8A9 schedule property, which is the encroached portion by the plaintiff and in the encroached land there are coconut trees and the plaintiff is in possession of the 8B9 schedule property by putting fence around

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

the suit 8B9 schedule property and is in exclusive possession of the property without anybody interference. It is also the case of the plaintiff that she has filed an application before the revenue authorities for the grant of suit 8A9 and 8B9 schedule property and the said application is pending for consideration. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that she has already taken electricity connection to 8A9 property and she is paying electricity charges and also paying the revenue taxes to the 8A9 schedule property to the Menase Grama Panchayath and her son by name Ravishekar Shetty @ S.Ravishankar was residing at Bombay and on 27.10.2020 her son demised and that during his lifetime he has married the defendant who was residing at Devarumane, Hariharapura and the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff has depended upon suit 8A9 and 8B9 schedule property for her livelihood. When such being the case, the defendant tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, filed the suit.

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared and filed the written statement admitting the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

relationship with the plaintiff and her son and denied all other averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff is the mother of husband of the defendant and the husband of the defendant was working at Bombay and he was the only earning member of the family and that either the plaintiff or

her parents have no house property and the husband of the defendant due to compelling situation went for employment and on the earnings of the husband of the defendant, he has purchased the house site under registered sale deed from one K.Balakrishna Shetty, who acquired under the grant made by Amaldar Sringeri and the said K.Balakrishna Shetty alienated the suit property to the husband of the defendant and the same is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The husband of the defendant after purchase of the property from K.Balakrishna Shetty has brought under the cultivation and the said K.Balakrishna Shetty has grown coconut trees and other fruits bearing trees and they brought under the cultivation and the defendant after the above said sale deed got rectified under rectification deed, which is also within the knowledge of the plaintiff and on the strength of the registered sale deed, khatha of the property was mutated in the name of the husband of the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

defendant. It is contended that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was very cordial till the demise of the husband of the defendant and after his demise, the plaintiff started claiming right over the property purchased by her husband and there was a threat to the defendant by the plaintiff. Hence, she started residing with her parents. The plaintiff has created the document to knock off the property belonging to the defendant and in order to grab the property, the plaintiff has filed application for grant of land, which is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendant.

The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged, framed the issue with regard to possession is concerned and particularly in detail taken note of the case of P.W.1 in paragraph No.12 and also document Ex.P.1 clearly reveals that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the 8A9 schedule property and she is paying tax. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1, wherein she categorically admits that the plaintiff is in possession of 8A9 schedule property. However, D.W.1 claims that earlier she was in possession of the property and after the death of her husband,

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

she was thrown out along with children and now she is staying along with her parents at Hariharapura. The Trial Court taking note of these admissions, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established the possession and granted the relief of permanent injunction.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, formulated the points whether the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and whether there is any interference. The First Appellate Court having considered these points for consideration, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly in paragraph No.25, taken note of Ex.P.17. As per Ex.P.17, Balakrishna Shetty purchased the property bearing Sy.No.159 to an extent of 5 guntas from Sunkappa Shetty and the boundaries mentioned in the plaint 8A9 schedule as well as the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.17 and Ex.D.1 does not tally with

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

each other and also taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination both in respect of the suit schedule property including 8B9 schedule property and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the

present second appeal is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in allowing the suit for permanent injunction as against the daughter-in-law restraining her from occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which belongs to her late husband. The learned counsel would contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating the documents Exs.D.1 and 3 i.e., sale deed and mutation. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts committed an error in ignoring the settled principle of law that unless the registered sale deed is cancelled or set aside by a competent Court, the same is binding and the defendant is entitled and having share in respect of her late husband9s property and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

8 -

HC-KAR

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the reasoning of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, no doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court Ex.D.1 sale deed in respect of 5 guntas of land is concerned i.e., in respect of Sy.No.166 and also relied upon the document Ex.D.3. But the material is very clear that in the cross-examination of D.W.1, she categorically admits that earlier she was in possession, but at the time of filing of the suit, she was not in possession. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 in respect of 8B9 schedule property, which is government land and she claims that she is in unauthorised possession to an extent of 10 guntas of land, which is 8B9 schedule property in Sy.No.166, for which the defendant has not spoken anything. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly in paragraph No.25, taken note of possession of the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. When such being the case, in a case of suit for injunction, the Court has to look into only the

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

HC-KAR

possession. If the possession is established, the Court has to grant the relief of declaration.

It is the main contention of the appellant/defendant before this Court that her husband had purchased the property and the sale deed stands in her name. The Trial Court extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 while coming to such a conclusion with regard to possession is concerned and the First Appellate Court, particularly in paragraph No.25, reconsidered the material on record. When the relief is sought only for bare injunction and possession is established by the plaintiff, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in considering both oral and documentary evidence with regard to possession is concerned and the same is established by the plaintiff. The scope of suit for injunction is also very limited.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sale deed stands in the name of her husband, but not filed any suit for comprehensive relief and the finding given by this Court with regard to possession is concerned should not come in the way of the appellant claiming comprehensive relief either

NC: 2025:KHC:48493 RSA No. 1354 of 2025

10 -

HC-KAR

for declaration or for relief of partition and separate possession. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the observation made by this Court shall not come in the way of considering the fresh suit, if any, filed by the appellant while claiming the relief based on the title of the sale deed of her husband.

With this observation, this second appeal is disposed of.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54