Dismissed¶61

Sri Shivaram v. Smt Jayamma

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2025RSA/1409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice Ashok S. Kinagi; RSA No. 1409 of 2024 (INJ); suit for permanent injunction; bare injunction; possession as on date of suit; part-performance of sale agreement Ex.D.10 dated 7.7.1993; revenue records in plaintiffs' names; presumption under Section 133 Karnataka Land Revenue Act; concurrent findings of fact; no substantial question of law; Section 100 CPC; Magadi courts; appeal dismissed and decrees confirmed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The judgments and decree passed by the courts below were confirmed; no order as to costs; I.A.1/2024 disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ¶61

Sri Shivaram Vs Smt Jayamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The judgments and decree passed by the courts below were confirmed; no order as to costs; I.A.1/2024 disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and whether the defendant interfered with that possession, so as to justify a decree of permanent injunction. +2 more

¶27

Court's answer

In a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession of the suit property and the interference as on the date of institution of the suit.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

There is a presumption regarding entries in the revenue records under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act; the defendant did not rebut it, and both courts below, drawing that presumption, held that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

¶53

Key takeaways

The defence based on the alleged sale agreement Ex.D.10 fails: neither the defendant's father nor the defendant took any steps to enforce Ex.D.10, and the plaintiffs denied its execution by their father.ratio¶50
Both courts below concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and that the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment.ratio¶55
No error was found in the impugned judgment and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the judgments and decree of the courts below were confirmed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the first appellate court's confirmation of a trial court decree granting the plaintiff-respondents a permanent injunction over ancestral suit schedule properties. The defendant-appellant claimed possession in part-performance of an alleged sale agreement (Ex.D.10, dated 7.7.1993) purportedly executed by the plaintiffs' father in favour of the defendant's father; the agreement was never enforced and the plaintiffs denied its execution. The revenue records stood in the names of the plaintiffs, and the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was not rebutted by the defendant. Holding that in a suit for bare injunction possession and interference must be considered as on the date of institution of the suit, and that the courts below had concurrently recorded findings of fact on possession and interference, the Court found no error in the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgments and decree, with no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHIVARAM S/O KALAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS R/O SIDDAPURA VILLAGE 562 131 DODDAMUDIGERE POST TIPPASANDRAHOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT JAYAMMA

¶14

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH W/O THIMMAIAH, AGE: 71 YEARS R/O NARASIMHAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 127

¶16

SMT. NARASAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH W/O DODDAHANUMAIAH AGE 69 YEARS, R/O LENKAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE KOTTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572130

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶19

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.36/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.14/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2024 passed in R.A.No.36/2021 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2021 passed in O.S.No.14/10 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi.

¶24

For convenience, the parties are referred based on their rankings before the trial Court. The Appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

¶25

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶27

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, originally, the suit schedule properties were the ancestral properties, and the revenue records, as on the date of the suit, jointly stand in the names of the plaintiffs and her sister Narasamma. The defendant, having no right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties, was trying to interfere and obstruct with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendant, to which he replied. Further, the plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the police, but they have not taken any action against the defendant. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for perpetual injunction and accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

¶28

3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying

¶29

the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶31

originally the suit property belonged to plaintiff’s grand father and that the plaintiffs father had agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of his father, and in part performance of the contract, possession of the suit schedule properties was delivered. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the question of the plaintiffs being in possession of the suit schedule properties does not arise. It is contended that there is no interference or obstruction, as claimed by the plaintiffs. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶32

3.2. The trial Court, based on the aforesaid pleadings, framed the relevant issues.

¶33

3.3. The plaintiffs to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW.1, and marked 6 documents as exhibits P.1 to P.6. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, examined 5 witnesses as DWs.2 to 6, and marked 16 documents as exhibits D.1 to D.16. The trial Court, after recording evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessment of verbal and documentary

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶35

evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide judgment dated 24.2.2021.

¶36

3.4. Defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.14/2010, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.36/2021 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi. The first Appellate Court, on re-assessment of verbal and documentary, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 24.7.2024 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.14/2010. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decree. Passed by the Courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶37

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶38

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiffs’ father agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant’s father, and in part performance of a contract, the plaintiffs father delivered

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶40

the possession of the suit schedule properties. He submits that, based on the sale agreement, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule properties. To prove the execution of the sale agreement by plaintiffs’ father in favour of the defendant’s father, the defendant examined 6 witnesses. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the defendant. The defendant is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 50 years. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous, and the same are liable to be set

¶41

aside. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.

¶42

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶43

The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff no.1 was examined as PW.1. She deposed that, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and originally, the suit schedule

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶45

properties were the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs. The defendant has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. Further, to establish that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs have produced a copy of the record of rights, marked as Ex.P.1 and P.3 regarding the

¶46

land bearing Sy.No.13/4 Exs.P.2 and P.4 are the RORs regarding the land in Sy.No.13/2. The said lands stands in the name of the plaintiffs. Ex.P.5 is the mutation extract which discloses that the names of the plaintiffs were mutated in the revenue records. Ex.P.6 is the RPAD acknowledgement.

¶47

During the course of cross examination, it was suggested that the plaintiffs’ father agreed to sell the suit schedule properties, and in part performance of the contract, the plaintiffs’ father delivered possession of the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant’s father. The plaintiffs have denied the execution of the

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶49

alleged sale agreement by their father in favour of the defendant’s father.

¶50

In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1. He has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove his defence, he has produced the documents marked as exhibits D.1 to D.16, and also examined 5 witnesses as DWs.2 to 6, who have deposed that, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule properties in part performance of the contract. Though, the defendant has taken the defence that the plaintiffs’ father executed the alleged sale agreement in favour of the defendant’s father on 7.7.1993 as per Ex.D.10, neither the defendant’s father nor the defendant has taken any steps to enforce Ex.D.10 i.e., the sale agreement. Further, the plaintiffs have denied the execution of Ex.D.10 by their father in favour of the defendant’s father. Admittedly, the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiffs.

¶51

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶52

It is well settled that, in a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession of the suit property, and the interference as on the date of institution of the suit. Admittedly, the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiffs. There is a presumption regarding the entries in the revenue records under Section 133 of

¶53

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The defendant has not rebutted the presumption. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court, drawing a presumption under section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, held that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and the defendant has tried to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court has rightly decreed the suit, and the first Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the

¶54

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10756 RSA No. 1409 of 2024

¶55

suit schedule properties and the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.

¶56