Partly allowed

Sri Lokesh @ Cable Lokesh v. Sri Raghunathan Pillai Alias Raghu

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025RSA/172/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second appeal challenging the injunction decree, holding that the respondent failed to prove possession based on an unregistered deed and sparse tax receipts, thereby setting aside the appellate decree. However, the court dismissed the cross second appeal, upholding the finding that the appellant's sale deed could not establish title for an unidentifiable vacant site.

What did the court decide?

RSA No. 172/2019 allowed, setting aside impugned decree granting injunction; RSA No. 171/2019 dismissed.

Sri Lokesh @ Cable Lokesh Vs Sri Raghunathan Pillai… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2019 (INJ)

¶7

C/W

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2019

¶9

IN RSA No. 172/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI LOKESH @ CABLE LOKESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SON OF SRI CHALUVEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO.242 MANCHE GOWDANA KOPPALU DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-570 001

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. Y. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI RAGHUNATHAN PILLAI @ RAGHU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF SRI MADHAVAN NAIR RESIDING AT NO.L-5 IV MAIN, HEBBAL I STAGE MYSURU-16.

¶17

SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SON OF LATE PUTTUR THIMME GOWDA RESIDING AT NO.733, NEAR BASVANAGUDI

¶18

1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, HEBBAL

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BASAVESHWARA NAGAR MYSURU-16

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VINAY N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN R.A.NO.166/2018(OLD NO.229/2016) FROM THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, PERUSE THE SAME, HEAR THE APPELLANT AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2018 PASSED THEREIN AND DISMISS THE 1^ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF'S SUIT IN O.S.NO.1037/2009 FILED BEFORE THE TRAIL COURT AND GRANT COSTS AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

IN RSA NO. 171/2019

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI LOKESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SON OF SRI.CHALUVEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.242, MANCHE GOWDANA KOPPALU, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 001.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. Y. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI RAGHUNATHAN PILLAI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF SRI.MADHAVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT NO.723,

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NEAR BASAVANAGUDI, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, MYSURU-570 016.

¶35

SRI.T.SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SON OF LATE THIMME GOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.733, NEAR BASAVANAGUDI, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, MYSURU-16.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. VINAY.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W.ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN R.A.NO.65/2017 FROM THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDE, MYSURU, PERUSE THE SAME, HEAR THE APPELLANT AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE SAID APPEAL AS SOUGHT FOR THEREIN BY DECREEING THE APPELLANT'S SUIT IN O.S.NO.135/2008 FILED ON THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, DATED 27/10/2016 AND GRANT COSTS AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EUQUTY.

¶39

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

RSA.171/2019 is by the plaintiff-Lokesh, who has filed O.S.No.135/2008 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which was dismissed and affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

¶45

RSA.No.172/2019 is by the defendant-Lokesh

¶46

against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.166/2018, which was filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1037/2009 by one Raghunathan Pillai.

¶47

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred by their names.

¶48

It is the case of Lokesh that he purchased the suit schedule property which is a site by one Smt.Devamma (owner of land bearing Sy.No.153/2 of Hebbal Village, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysuru) through a document dated 15.09.1988 and thereafter, he put up a temporary structure which was collapsed due to rain and wind, as such, the suit property remained as a vacant site. However, during the month of January, 2008,

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Raghunathan Pillai interfered with the peaceful possession of said property and as such, he has filed O.S.No.135/2008 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Raghunathan Pillai.

¶52

On the other hand, it is the case of Raghunathan Pillai that he purchased the suit schedule property which is a site from one Sri. Srinivasagowda vide Sale Deed dated 17.10.2005. Thereafter, he put up a house with asbestos sheet and was residing with his wife and children. However, Lokesh, who was a stranger to Raghunathan Pillai, interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, he filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police and thereafter, he moved to a rented house. As such, he filed O.S.No.1037/2009 seeking permanent injunction against Lokesh.

¶53

The suit of Raghunathan Pillai was dismissed by the

¶54

Trial Court by observing that since Sale Deed - Ex.P7 produced by Raghunathan Pillai was an unregistered document and the same was not supported by any corresponding documents i.e., khatha or RTC and tax paid receipts - Ex.P3, the same cannot

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

be accepted to prove the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by Raghunathan Pillai. In addition, Ex.P3 which is a tax paid receipt cannot be considered to prove the fact that Raghunathan Pillai has constructed a house in the suit schedule property and was residing in the same. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of Raghnathan Pillai.

¶58

Even the suit of Lokesh came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Sale Deed - Ex.P1 produced by Lokesh, being an unregistered document, having not supported by any corresponding documents, the same cannot be accepted to prove the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by Lokesh.

¶59

Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.1037/2009, Raghunathan Pillai preferred R.A.No.166/2018. The First Appellate Court, having reappreciated the evidence on record, has observed that the photographs produced by Raghunathan Pillai at Exs.P9, 10, 13 and 14, which were taken on 08.01.2008 and which were not disputed, revealed that the said condition of the house in the suit property was because of human intervention and had not

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

fallen due to rain or natural calamity and said human intervention was by Lokesh and Srinivasagowda cannot be ruled out. As such, Raghunathan Pillai has proved his possession over the suit property and also interference by the defendants therein. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of Raghunathan Pillai by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in his suit and granted permanent injunction restraining defendants i.e., Lokesh and Srinivasagowda from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by Raghunathan Pillai. Aggrieved by which, Lokesh preferred RSA.No.172/2019.

¶63

On the other hand, against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.135/2008, Lokesh preferred R.A.No.65/2017. The First Appellate Court, having reappreciated the evidence on record, has observed that as per Ex.P3-RTC, Sy.No.153/2 total measuring to an extent of 7 acres 27 guntas and that Lokesh has failed to show exact location of the suit schedule property in said extent of 7 acres 27 guntas. As such, in respect of property which is incapable of identification, no decree of permanent injunction can be

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

granted and even the interference by Raghunathan Pillai has not been proved by Lokesh. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of Lokesh. Aggrieved by which, Lokesh preferred RSA.171/2019.

¶67

I have heard Sri Y.Nagaraj for learned counsel Sri C.Shankar Reddy, appearing for the appellant - Lokesh and Sri Vinay N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1Raghunathan Pillai.

¶68

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for Raghunathan Pillai that after the execution of the unregistered Sale Deed, he paid taxes to the concerned department in respect of the suit schedule property, in support of which, he has produced Ex.P16 - tax paid receipt and that he also put up a structure on the suit schedule property and thereafter, he was residing along with his family. He further contended that to substantiate the said aspect Raghunathan Pillai filed photographs of the structure constructed in the suit schedule property vide Exs.P9 to P14 and also the CD in Ex.P15.

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

According to the learned counsel, these aspects of the matter was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court dealt with the said aspects in detail and rightly set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court, by allowing the regular appeal filed by Raghunathan Pillai. As such, interference with the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.166/2018 does not call for at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the second appeal filed by Lokesh.

¶72

Per contra, learned counsel for Lokesh contended that the First Appellate Court has totally erred while allowing the appeal filed by Raghunathan Pillai and dismissing the appeal filed by Lokesh without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. According to the learned counsel, the title relied on by Raghunathan Pillai, is an unregistered document and was not supported by any other revenue documents except undated tax paid receipts. Further, Raghunathan Pillai also failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit schedule property and also interference by Lokesh and Srinivasagowda with his lawful possession by

¶73

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

placing any documents, except his pleadings that he had lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police.

¶76

Further, the photographs produced by Raghunathan Pillai - in Exs.P9 to 14 also depicts that the structure was in very dilapidated condition and the same was not constructed by the plaintiff on the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. However, the First Appellate Court totally relying on Exs.P9, 10, 13 and 14 - photographs allowed the appeal of Raghunathan Pillai based on surmise and conjectures. Even in the appeal filed by Lokesh, the First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the materials and evidence produced by Lokesh in right perspective. In such circumstances, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.Nos.166/2018 and R.A.No.65/2017 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the second appeals.

¶77

I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the documents and impugned

¶78

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

¶81

The only substantial question of law that would

¶82

arise for my consideration in these appeals is-

¶83

Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing R.A.No.65/2017 and allowing R.A.No.166/2018 filed by Raghunathan Pillai, thereby granting an order of perpetual injunction against Lokesh and Srinivasagowda?

¶84

I have carefully perused the impugned judgments and decrees and other documents made available before this Court. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that Raghunathan Pillai claims a right on the suit schedule property based on unregistered Sale Deed and said Sale Deed is not registered till the date of filing of the suit. A perusal of tax paid receipts - Exs.P2 and 3 reveals that Raghunathan Pillai paid tax in respect of suit schedule property. However, in respect of subsequent years, tax paid receipts were not placed by Raghunathan Pillai. Further, it is seen that Raghunathan Pillai had lodged the complaint vide Ex.P8 against Lokesh and

¶85

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Srinivasagoweda for illegal interference, which was registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No.4/2008 dated 06.01.2008 vide FIR - Ex.P4. However, Raghunathan Pillai has failed to produce any material in respect of subsequent investigation or filing any chargesheet in the said case.

¶88

On careful perusal of the photographs relied on by Raghunathan Pillai i.e., Exs.P9, 10, 13 and 14, it clearly depicts that the structure was demolished. Raghunathan Pillai has not produced any other documents to prove that himself and family members were residing in the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, the possession Raghunathan Pillai in the suit schedule property is not properly established. Mere placing of photographs and unregistered Sale Deed and tax paid receipts itself does not confirm any right to Raghunathan Pillai in the suit schedule property and also the interference of Lokesh and Srinivasagowda in the suit schedule property. This aspect of the matter has rightly been appreciated by the Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of Raghunathan Pillai only relying on the admission of the defendants and the photographs produced vide Exs.P9, 10, 13

¶89

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

and 14 pertaining to the suit schedule property. Be that as it may, it is the duty cast on Raghunathan Pillai to establish that he is owner in possession of the suit schedule property. As discussed supra, except Exs.P9, 10, 13 and 14 in respect of demolition of structure put up in the suit schedule property, no other documents were placed by Raghunathan Pillai to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. The tax paid receipts produced by Raghunathan Pillai were of the year 2007. However, he has not produced any such receipts in between the year 2005 (i.e., when he has purchased the property) and 2007 and also in respect of subsequent years. In such circumstances, in my considered view, the First Appellate Court has erred in allowing R.A.No.166/2018 filed by Raghunathan Pillai. Hence, interference is required with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.166/2018.

¶92

On the other hand, the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.65/2017 filed by Lokesh has rightly observed that even Lokesh has failed to prove the possession of suit schedule property, which is stated to be a vacant site, since said site

¶93

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

which is alleged to have been carved in i.e., Sy.No.153/2, was an extent of 7 acres 27 guntas and as such, it is incapable of identification and the document relied on by Lokesh, being an unregistered Sale Deed, the same cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting documents. Thus, the First Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no decree of permanent injunction can be passed in favour of Lokesh in respect of suit schedule property which is incapable of identification.

¶96

Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in respect of R.A.No.65/2017 in "affirmative" and in respect of R.A.No.166/2018 in "negative" and proceed to pass the following order:

¶97

ORDER

¶98

i) RSA.No.171/2019 appeal is dismissed .

¶99

ii) RSA.No.172/2019 is allowed. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.166/2018 dated 30.10.2018 by the II Additional District Judge, Mysuru, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in

¶100

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:43033 RSA No. 172 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 171 of 2019

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

O.S.No.1037/2009 dated 27.10.2016 is hereby affirmed.

¶103

iii) No order as to costs.

¶104

In view of disposal of the appeals, all pending I.As' do

¶105

not survive for consideration.

¶106

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶107

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Lokesh @ Cable Lokesh v. Sri Raghunathan Pillai Alias Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lokesh @ Cable Lokesh v. Sri Raghunathan Pillai Alias Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State by Honnali Police Station Vs Halasiddappa

Manjunatha G Vs Sri Muniraja

Smt Shantala Alias Nagalakshmi P C Vs Smt Rathnamma

M.S. Ramesha Vs Sannahydegowda

Smt Kanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Vinod Kumar Gowda B. K. Vs the State of Karnataka