Dismissed¶58

Manjunath v. Vs Smt.Munirathnamma

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025RSA/1602/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bare injunction suit maintainability; declaration of title; denial of plaintiff's title; cloud on title; Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy 2008 AIR (SC) 2033 applied; presumption under Section 133 Karnataka Land Revenue Act (KLRA) argued by counsel but not drawn; Section 100 CPC second appeal; no substantial question of law; Sy.No.34/1, 11 guntas out of 19 guntas; Will dated 06.08.1974; sale deed dated 29.07.1958; release deed not produced; revenue records; permanent injunction suit; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No.1602 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC:10017; decided 07.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; liberty reserved to the plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit; I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024 do not survive for consideration. ¶58

Manjunath v Vs Smt.Munirathnamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; liberty reserved to the plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit; I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024 do not survive for consideration.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether a suit for bare/permanent injunction, without seeking a declaration of title, is maintainable where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property and there is a serious dispute regarding title and possession. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

Where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title and there is a serious dispute regarding title and possession of the suit schedule property, a mere suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008 AIR (SC) 2033); accordingly the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

To establish that his father had executed a release deed in his favour, the plaintiff did not produce the release deed, though he claims possession based on it; the plaintiff also failed to establish Muniyappa's alleged ownership under the Will dated 06.08.1974, leaving his title unproven while the defendants claim under registered sale deed dated 29.07.1958.

¶51

Key takeaways

The Court found no error in the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court and held that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal; accordingly the appeal deserved to be dismissed.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC by the plaintiff against the first appellate Court's reversal. Plaintiff claimed absolute ownership and possession of the suit schedule property through a Will dated 06.08.1974 by one Muniyappa in favour of his father Venkatesh and an alleged subsequent release deed, and sued for bare permanent injunction after an attempted dispossession on 15.07.2015; he did not produce the release deed in evidence. Defendants claimed title through Lingappa (sale deed dated 29.07.1958), sales of three bits to defendant No.1's husband on 31.05.1971, subsequent partition and alienations, asserting enjoyment of the remaining 11 guntas out of 19 guntas in Sy.No.34/1. Trial Court decreed the suit (judgment dated 04.10.2023 in O.S.No.932/2015); the first appellate Court allowed R.A.No.66/2023 (judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024), set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. Held (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.): where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title and there is a serious dispute of title and possession, a mere suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable, applying the ratio in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, 2008 AIR (SC) 2033; no error was found in the impugned judgment and no substantial question of law arises. Appeal dismissed with liberty to file a comprehensive suit; I.A.Nos.1/2024 & 2/2024 do not survive.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1602 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJUNATH V S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 060

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. KALLESHAPPA K S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

2. MUNIRAJU,

S/O LATE NAGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

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

¶16

BOTH ARE R/A GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERIHOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 060

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)

¶18

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.66/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.932/2015

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶21

ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed in R.A.No.66/2023 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶26

For convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

¶27

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

¶28

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶31

interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶32

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is

¶33

the absolute owner in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that originally the suit property belonged to one Muniyappa, where he had bequeathed the same under a Will dated 06.08.1974 in favour of the plaintiff’s father namely, Venkatesh. The plaintiff’s father executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff on 22.11.2024. The suit schedule property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff and he was put in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 15.07.2015 the defendant came to the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.

¶34

The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶36

contended that the suit property was belonged to one Lingappa under the sale deed dated 29.07.1958. The Lingappa sold three bits of land in favour of defendant No.1’s husband on 31.05.1971. Khata was transferred in the name of defendant No.1’s husband and his brother Krishnappa. Subsequently, defendant No.1’s husband and his brother Krishnappa got partitioned the suit property in respect of their shares and sold land measuring 7 guntas in favour of one Siddappa and said Nagappa i.e., defendant No.1’s husband, also sold his share in favour of one K. Mallaiah. After the demise of both Nagappa and Krishnappa, the defendants, being the successors of Nagappa and Krishnappa succeeded to the remaining extent of 11 guntas out of 19 guntas in Sy.No.34/1 i.e., suit survey number and they are enjoying the same. It is contended that the plaintiff’s name was entered in the revenue records by colluding with the revenue officials. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶39

The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶40

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 19 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.19. On the other hand, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.9. The trial Court, on the assessment of the oral and the documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 04.10.2023. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.932/2015, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.66/2023 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶41

The First Appellate Court, on reassessment of the oral and the documentary evidence, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶43

passed in R.A.No.66/2023, filed this regular second appeal.

¶44

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶45

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff’s father had succeeded to the suit schedule property under the sale deed dated 06.08.1974. Plaintiff’s father had executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, based on the release deed got entered his name in the revenue records. He submits that the revenue records disclose that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that there is a presumption regarding to the entries under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘KLRA’). The first appellate Court has not drawn the presumption under Section 133 of the KLRA. Hence, he submits that the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court and the first appellate

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶48

Court are all contrary and erroneous and on these grounds prays to allow the appeal.

¶49

Perused the records and considered the

¶50

submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶51

The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property based on the release deed alleged to have been executed by his father in his favour. Further, the plaintiff also claims that one Muniyappa was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff’s father. To establish that the plaintiffs’ father has executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not produced the release deed. Further, the defendants also claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1958. There is a serious dispute regarding the title

¶52

and possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants have denied the plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule property. A cloud has been cast on the title of

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10017 RSA No. 1602 of 2024

¶54

the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a suit for bare injunction. Hence, a mere suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 2033 .

¶55

The first appellate Court has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar ( supra ) and rightly dismissed the suit. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment or any substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal.

¶56