Dismissed¶70

M.C. Hiremani v. Sri. Murali

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025RSA/1635/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No.1635 of 2024; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Justice H.P. Sandesh; decided 07.11.2025; permanent injunction / bare injunction suit; Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act 1963; Section 41 Specific Relief Act; Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 2 CPC; efficacious alternative remedy before Deputy Commissioner; CMC Bhadravathi encroachment notice Ex.D.1; DC appeal dismissed Ex.D.5; encroachment of Government land 10 x 32 feet; Sy.No.222/2 Bhadravathi; purchase from S. Kotaiah 27.08.1993; O.S.No.319/2013; R.A.No.37/2021; concurrent findings; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declined to admit the second appeal or frame any substantial question of law. ¶63

M.C. Hiremani Vs Sri. Murali — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law arises for admission of the regular second appeal where the courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff, who had an efficacious remedy before the Deputy Commissioner against the CMC's encroachment/quit notice, was not entitled to a bare injunction.

¶63

Court's answer

The Court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declined to admit the second appeal or frame any substantial question of law.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the conclusion of the courts below, the Court proceeded on the basis that when an efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff, he ought not to have approached the Civil Court seeking a bare injunction despite the notice to quit premises in his unauthorised occupation.

¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J.), RSA No.1635 of 2024 (INJ), decided 07.11.2025 — Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 2 CPC by the LRs of deceased plaintiff M.C. Hiremani against concurrent dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction (O.S.No.319/2013, II Addl. Civil Judge, Bhadravathi; confirmed in R.A.No.37/2021, Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bhadravathi). Plaintiff claimed purchase of a 10 x 50 feet site in Sy.No.222/2 from S. Kotaiah (27.08.1993) and allotment of the remaining area by CMC, Bhadravathi (Ex.P.2 receipt); defendant No.1 alleged the plaintiff encroached 10 x 32 feet of Government land, and CMC issued notices (Ex.D.1) requiring him to quit and vacate. The plaintiff's appeal against Ex.D.1 before the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed as per Ex.D.5. The Trial Court found possession (issues 1-3 affirmed) but declined relief under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; the First Appellate Court held the plaintiff had an efficacious remedy before the Deputy Commissioner. Held: no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1635 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI,

¶10

DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. GUNDAMMA, W/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶13

SRI. LOKESH, S/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶14

SRI. SRIDHARA, S/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶18

KUM. LEELAVATHI, D/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶19

SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE M.C. HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. KARTHIK S. TAYUR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI. MURALI, S/O LATE JAYADEVA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND TAJ HIGH SCHOOL, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶24

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TARIKERE ROAD, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.09.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.319/2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

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

¶33

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶34

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is contented that he has purchased the property measuring 10 x 50 feet in land bearing Sy.No.222/2, bearing site No.7 and assessment No.1503 from one S.Kotaiah on 27.08.1993. The CMC, Bhadravathi had given the possession of the said property after receiving the fee. The CMC, Bhadravathi had issued assessment register to the plaintiff pertaining to the property

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

measuring 20 x 50 feet. The defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.

¶39

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants

¶40

appeared through their counsel and defendant No.1 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant No.1 vehemently contended that the original

¶41

owner S. Kotaiah was the owner of the property measuring 30 x 50 feet, which comprised a Mangalore tiled house. Out of which, the plaintiff had purchased the land measuring 10 x 50 feet and the mother of this defendant by name Rama Bai had purchased the land measuring 10 x 50 feet and another person by name Tulsi Bai had purchased the land measuring 10 x 50 feet. Towards the eastern side of the property purchased by the plaintiff, there is a channel road and the plaintiff with an intention to grab the public road, illegally constructed the house. Against the illegality of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 had filed an application before the CMC, Bhadravathi. The Engineers of the CMC, Bhadravathi have visited the spot and found that the plaintiff had encroached 10 x 32 feet of the Government land. The Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga also

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

directed the CMC, Bhadravathi to take action against the illegal construction. That on 30.04.2013, CMC, Bhadravathi had issued notice to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had issued reply, wherein he admitted the said encroachment. Thereafter, the engineer visited the spot and found that the plaintiff had encroached the Government land. Considering the illegal encroachment, the CMC, Bhadravathi had issued notice to the plaintiff on 12.07.2013. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. The suit itself is not maintainable, since other alternative remedy is available to the plaintiff and hence the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

¶45

The defendant No.2 CMC, Bhadravathi also filed the written statement contending that notice was issued based on the requisition filed by defendant No.1. The suit is filed for the relief of bare injunction and not filed for any relief of declaration to declare that notice issued by the CMC is bad in law and when the notice was issued, immediately he had approached the Civil Court without exhausting his remedy.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession by answering issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, but declined to grant the relief in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and dismissed the suit.

¶50

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.37/2021. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the appellant established before the Trial Court that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property, whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court, in paragraph No.18 taken note of the grounds which have been urged and also the documents, which have been relied upon and considering the material available on record, in paragraph No.29, taken note of issuance of notice against the plaintiff and also cross-objection filed before the Court and an observation is made that it is admitted fact that after issuing of notice by

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

defendant No.2, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. Ex.D.1 is the notice issued by defendant No.2, wherein they have mentioned that he has encroached the public property and asked him to vacate the suit property. The First Appellate Court also taken note of that P.W.1 in his crossexamination admitted that he has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against Ex.D.1 notice. The Deputy Commissioner after considering all the materials placed before him, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant as per Ex.D.5. The admission of P.W.1 in his cross-examination and Ex.D.5 clearly shows that the plaintiff got efficacious remedy, then if the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, he has to challenge the said order before the competent authority and instead of that, he had approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court dismissed the suit on the ground that when the process was initiated against the plaintiff, he has sought for the relief of injunction. The First Appellate Court considering the material available on record, particularly in paragraph No.30, assigned the reason that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of bare injunction.

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Being aggrieved by the said order, the present

¶57

second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶58

The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that Ex.P.2 is the receipt under which the possession is handed over by the Municipality in respect of remaining area and there is a sale deed in respect of 10 x 50 feet and also the appellants are paying the tax to the Municipality after constructing the house. When such possession is established, the Trial Court ought to have granted the relief of permanent injunction.

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants

¶60

and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that 10 x 50 feet was purchased by him and it is also his case that remaining area was also allotted by the Municipality. But no document is placed before the Court, except Ex.P.2 receipt and the Municipality has not granted the land in accordance with law. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that out of 30 x 50 feet, he had purchased 10 x 50 feet and the plaintiff had purchased 10 x 50 feet and another

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

person also purchased 10 x 50 feet and hence the title is in respect of 10 x 50 feet. But the fact is that the plaintiff had encroached the Government property and inspection was conducted and engineer also visited and notice was issued against the plaintiff and the same is challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by the plaintiff and when the appeal was dismissed, he had approached the Civil Court by filing a suit. Hence, the Trial Court taking note of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and also the First Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that when efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff, ought not to have approached the Civil Court. The appellant when the notice was issued to quit and vacate the premises, which is in his unauthorised occupation, since he has encroached the same, filed the civil suit and hence I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:45315 RSA No. 1635 of 2024

¶65