Narasimha Murthy Vs Chikka Narasaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Narasimha Murthy Vs Chikka Narasaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether any grounds exist to admit the Regular Second Appeal and frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC against the concurrent findings of the Courts below? +1 more

Court's answer

No grounds exist to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; the second appeal is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Only on the basis of the document of change of katha in the name of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, the relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted when the registered documents clearly reveal handing over of possession in the year 1959 and the purchaser in turn handing over possession in the year 1962.

Key takeaways

Since there was a sale in the year 1959 itself, it is clear that the very family members of the plaintiff sold the property.ratio¶58
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 supported the case of the plaintiff, and hence the suit is a collusive suit.obiter¶58
On perusal of the record and the reasoning of the Trial Court, the Trial Court had taken note of the sale made by the father of the plaintiff in the year 1959 and the subsequent sale deed of the year 1962; the appellant's contention of perversity did not persuade the Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings dismissing a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff (Narasimha Murthy, since deceased, represented by his legal representatives Shivamma and Manjula) claimed that Sy.No.20/5 measuring 1-02 acres, Sy.No.20/3 measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.21/1 measuring 2-24 acres of Gowdihalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, originally belonged to his father Chikkanna and devolved on him and defendant No.1 as sons, shared equally by a palupatti dated 15.12.1982, and sought injunction against interference by defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 (Boramma, widow of Shankaranarayana) pleaded title under a registered sale deed of 1959 executed by Chikkanna for himself and his then minor sons in favour of Siddaiah, followed by a resale to Narasamma under a registered sale deed dated 03.08.1962. The Trial Court found the plaintiff not in possession and dismissed the suit; the First Appellate Court confirmed. Held by the High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.): where registered documents reveal sale and handing over of possession in 1959 and resale in 1962, relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted merely on the basis of a change of katha in the plaintiff's name; the very family members of the plaintiff had sold the property in 1959; defendant Nos.1 and 2 having supported the plaintiff, the suit is collusive; no grounds exist to admit the appeal or frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC. Second appeal dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

NARASIMHA MURTHY,

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

SHIVAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

MANJULA, D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

PRESENTLY BOTH ARE R/O. P-56, 3^RD CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, C - BLOCK, GAYATRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHIKKA NARASAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

SIDDA LINGAIAH, S/O CHIKKA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

HC-KAR

RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/O GOWDIHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK.

BORAMMA, W/O LATE SHANKARANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VIVEKANANDANAGARA, 2^ND CROSS, RANGAPURA ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for the appellants.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

finding.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court while seeking the relief of injunction, it is

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

HC-KAR

specifically pleaded that land in Sy.No.20/5 totally measuring

1-02 acres, Sy.No.20/3 totally measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.21/1 measuring 2-24 acres situated at Gowdihalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, which is morefully described in the schedule, originally belonged to one Chikkanna, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The said Chikkanna had acquired the same through inheritance. After his death, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 being the sons have succeeded to the above lands and were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. In between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 there was a palupatti dated 15.12.1982 and got shared the property equally and they are in possession of the property. It is further contented that one Shankaranarayana, the husband of defendant No.3 was utter stranger to this property and had no manner of right, title or interest and started interfering with possession of the plaintiff property and also created the concocted sale deed. The Deputy Tahasildar has registered a RRT and passed an order changing the katha and pahani of the entire extent of lands in the said survey numbers including the suit properties in the name of Shankaranarayana. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have also

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

HC-KAR

preferred the appeal and the said appeal was allowed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of the plaintiff is residing at Bangalore, he used to visit the suit properties once in a week and looking after the agricultural properties trying to interfere with possession of the property of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 admitted the statement of the plaint averments and contended that there was a partition between them on 15.12.1982. The defendant No.3 appeared and filed the written statement contending that there was a sale deed in the year 1959. Chikkanna on his behalf and also on behalf of his then minor sons executed a registered sale deed in favour of Siddaiah S/o Chikkanna and hence the purchaser became the absolute owner and subsequently in turn, he sold the suit properties in favour of Narasamma W/o Doddarangaiah under a registered sale deed dated 03.08.1962 and she became the absolute owner in possession of the property. After the death of Narasamma, her only son Shankaranarayana became the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

HC-KAR

absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and hence, the very claim made by the plaintiff that the property is an ancestral property and the same is inherited by him is false and frivolous.

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the sale deed of the year 1959 and subsequent sale deed of the year 1962 and the property stands in the name of Shankaranarayana and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.42/2021. The First Appellate Court also is having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the Points for consideration and also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

HC-KAR

aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal is that the judgments of both the Courts are perverse and not based on any material available on record. In a suit for permanent injunction, the Court has to look into the documents which establishe the possession of the plaintiff. The Trial Court fails to take note of the documents at Ex.P1 to P26 but erroneously taken note of the documents of ‘D’ series. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the substantial questions of law.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record as well as the reasoning given by the Trial Court, it discloses that the Trial Court taken note of the sale made by the father of the plaintiff long back in the year 1959 and subsequent sale deed of the year 1962 made by the subsequent purchaser. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that at the time of sale, the plaintiff was a minor and the said contention cannot be accepted since the legal heirs of

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

HC-KAR

Chikkanna were minors, the same was challenged immediately and the property was transferred in the year 1959 as well as the document of Ex.D30 came into existence on 23.08.1962 and records also disclose that taking the advantage of the property stands in the name of original owner Chikkanna, got transferred the katha and also got the property partitioned among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. It has to be noted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have supported the case of the plaintiff and hence it is collusive suit. But the fact that when there was a sale in the year 1959 itself, it is very clear that the very family members of the plaintiff only sold the property. Only based on the document of change of katha in the name of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, the Court cannot grant the relief of permanent injunction when the registered document clearly reveals with regard to the handing over the possession in the year 1959 and in turn, purchaser has handed over the possession in the year 1962 and when the property got changed in the name of the plaintiff, the same was also questioned before the competent authority. When such being the case, I do not find any grounds to admit the appeal

NC: 2025:KHC:47547 RSA No. 1643 of 2024

8 -

HC-KAR

and to frame any substantial questions of law invoking Section

100 of CPC.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42