Dismissed¶89

Chandraiah Gowda v. S R Lakshminarayana Singh

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2025RSA/1752/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Anant Ramanath Hegde J, 18-09-2025), RSA No. 1752 of 2014: third-party claimant under Shivamogga City Municipality lacks locus standi to appeal injunction decree; Exs.D5/D6 assessment extracts are no proof of municipal title; grant without title cannot sustain a claim; appeal dismissed; plaint-rejection warning for future suits without prima facie title material.

What did the court decide?

The appellant, claiming a grant under the City Municipality pursuant to an alleged resolution, has no locus standi to file the present second appeal; the appeal is therefore dismissed. ¶89

Chandraiah Gowda Vs S R Lakshminarayana Singh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant — a third party in whose favour the defendant/Shivamogga City Municipality had purportedly resolved to grant the suit land — has locus standi to maintain this regular second appeal against the decree between the plaintiffs and the Municipality. +1 more

¶89

Court's answer

The appellant, claiming a grant under the City Municipality pursuant to an alleged resolution, has no locus standi to file the present second appeal; the appeal is therefore dismissed.

¶89

Ratio / Principle

The documents at Exs.D5 and D6 (assessment extracts) do not establish the title of the defendant/City Municipality; the Municipality produced no title deed and had accepted the decree that the plaintiffs are the owners.

¶75

Key takeaways

Though the suit is couched as one for 'mandatory injunction', it is in substance a suit for bare injunction.obiter¶37
A person claiming under the City Municipality cannot maintain the claim/suit, because the alleged grant in his favour proceeds from a Municipality that has no title to the property.ratio¶87
Liberty reserved: if the appellant secures documents establishing a valid title in favour of the Municipality, he may question the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Municipality.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal by the proposed grantee (through the LRs of the deceased original appellant Chandraiah Gowda) against the concurrent findings in O.S.143/2001, whereby the plaintiffs obtained an injunction restraining Shivamogga City Municipality from granting the suit land to any third party. The Municipality's first appeal (R.A.No.97/2009) and its applications I.A.Nos.III and V under Order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC for production of additional evidence were dismissed by judgment and decree dated 9.9.2014. Before the High Court, the appellant relied on assessment extracts (Exs.D5 and D6) to show municipal ownership. The Court held that the Municipality produced no title deed, that Exs.D5 and D6 do not establish municipal title, and that a claimant under a Municipality lacking title has no locus to maintain the appeal; the appeal was accordingly dismissed. Liberty was reserved to challenge the decree upon proof of valid municipal title, with a caution that a fresh suit without prima facie title material would face rejection of the plaint, while a suit supported by a municipal title deed would be considered on merits. Leave rejected; I.A. Nos. 1/2016, 2/2016, 1/2025 and 1/2014 dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1752 OF 2014 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRAIAH GOWDA S/O VENKATE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶10

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS

¶11

1(a). H S PADMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRAIAH GOWDA,

¶12

2(b). SREEHARSHA T C,

¶13

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH GOWDA, BOTH ARE R/AT SECOND PARALLEL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, SHIVAMOGGGA.

¶14

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI M SANDESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED A1(a) AND A1(b))

¶16

AND:

¶17

S R LAKSHMINARAYANA SINGH, S/O RAMA SINGH, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT JAYANAGARA 3^RD CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201. SINCE DECEASED

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

SMT RADHA BAI, W/O LATE DHARMA SINGH, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT JAYANAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

S.D.ANANTHARAM SINGH, S/O LATE DHARMA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT JAYANAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶23

SHIVAMOGGA CITY MUNICIPALITY, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶24

SANDHYA, W/O KUBERU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU -560017.

¶25

SOWMYA THANUDI, D/O CHANDRAIAH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, 2^ND FLOOR, GRUHA LAKSHMI LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI R GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3, SRI ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R1 DECEASED)

¶28

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.9.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.97/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT 11.6.2009 IN O.S.143/2001 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

This second appeal is from a concurrent finding in a suit for mandatory injunction and also permanent injunction.

¶36

The suit is filed against City Municipality, Shivamogga. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction against the defendant/City Municipality, to restrain the City Municipality from granting the property to any person, who seeks grant of the land.

¶37

Though the phrase used is 'mandatory injunction', for all practical purposes, the suit is one for 'bare injunction'.

¶38

The plaintiffs essentially contended that they

¶39

are the lawful owners of the property and in possession of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the property and defendant/ City Municipality is proposing

¶44

to grant the land in favour of a third party. However, the third party in whose favour the proposal is made for grant, is not made a party.

¶45

The defendant/City Municipality contested the

¶46

suit. On contest, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and also in possession of the property and granted injunction as prayed for.

¶47

The defendant/City Municipality filed an appeal before First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court concurred the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶48

At the same time, applications at IA Nos. III and V filed by the defendant/City Municipality under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also dismissed.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

First Appellate Court also found that the

¶52

plaintiffs are the owners of the property and in possession of the property.

¶53

The defendant/City Municipality which claimed to be the owner of the suit schedule property did not file any appeal. However, the present appeal is filed by a third party in whose favour the property was proposed to be granted by the defendant/City Municipality.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellant who is not a party before the Trial Court and First Appellate Court would submit that he had filed an application seeking grant of land and City Municipality had passed a resolution to grant the suit property to the appellant and upon coming to know about this resolution, passed by the defendant/City Municipality, the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendant/City Municipality filed a suit and did not implead the present appellant as a party to the proceedings. It is his submission that the defendant/City

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Municipality did not contest the case effectively and the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶58

It is also urged that the defendant/City Municipality not having produced relevant records to establish its title over the property, had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and filed applications seeking leave of the First Appellate Court to produce additional evidence and those applications are also dismissed and appeal is also dismissed as there was no effective representation on behalf of the defendant/City Municipality. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court, would come in the way of the plaintiff's application seeking grant.

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that because of the decree passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, the resolution which is

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

passed by the defendant/City Municipality, is not given effect to and the present appellant is aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments and decrees.

¶64

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, would submit that the appellant has no locus to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the property does not belong to the City Municipality. The appellant is not entitled to file an application seeking grant of the land, as the City Municipality is not the owner of the property. The City Municipality which contested the suit before the Trial Court, filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and filed two applications for production of additional evidence. Those applications are also dismissed and appeal is also dismissed on contest and the defendant/city Municipality has accepted the fact that it is not the owner of the property and judgment to this effect has attained finality and this being the position, the appellant who is seeking right over the property

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

pursuant to the alleged resolution in his favour, passed by the City Municipality, cannot maintain the appeal as the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that the defendant/City Municipality has no right over the suit property.

¶68

Learned counsel for the appellant to

¶69

substantiate the contention that the City Municipality is the owner of the property has filed a memo along with five documents.

¶70

Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the assessment extract for the year 2000 - 2001 would reveal the name of the City Municipality, Shivamogga as the owner of the property and learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents would contend that these documents were considered by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and they have concluded that these documents do not establish the title of the property.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that their title over the suit property is established under two registered sale deeds which are marked at Exs.P1 and P2. It is further submitted that the assessment extracts produced by the defendant/City Municipality are subsequent to the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

¶75

It is also noticed that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have held that the entries in the assessment registers have been made without there being any basis. This Court, having considered the contentions raised at the bar and having perused the records, is of the view that the documents at Exs.D5 and D6 do not establish the title of the defendant/City Municipality.

¶76

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents would also submit that the City Municipality made an attempt to produce additional documents to substantiate its claim that it is the owner of the suit property by

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

producing two applications before First Appellate Court. Application at I.A.No.III was for production of some correspondence, which did not reveal any title in favour of the City Municipality, application at I.A.No.V is in respect of a Sale Deed, which is said to have been executed by the City Municipality in favour of one Chandrahasa and that again is not pertaining to the suit property.

¶80

This Court having considered the contentions raised at the bar, has noticed the following aspects:-

¶81

a) The defendant/City Municipality has not

¶82

produced any title deed to claim ownership over the property.

¶83

b) The defendant/City Municipality has accepted the decree that the plaintiffs are the owner of the property and defendant/City Municipality is not the owner of the property.

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

This being the position, the appellant who is claiming under the City Municipality cannot maintain a suit as the alleged grant in favour of the appellant is without there being any title in favour of the City Municipality.

¶88

Despite giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to produce the document relating to the title of the Municipality, the appellant has not produced any document so far.

¶89

This appeal is of the year 2013. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellant has no locus to file the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶90

However, it is made clear that in case the appellant is able to secure the documents to establish the title of the Municipality, the appellant is at liberty to question the decree which is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Municipality provided there is a valid title in favour of the Municipality.

¶91

12 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:39422 RSA No. 1752 of 2014

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

24. Merely because this observation is made, the

¶95

appellant is not at liberty to file a suit without producing

¶96

any prima facie materials to establish the title. If such suit is filed without producing any prima facie material, the plaint shall have to be rejected.

¶97

If the suit is filed by producing the title deed in favour of the Municipality, the suit shall be considered on its merit notwithstanding the dismissal of this appeal.

¶98

Leave rejected.

¶99

In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. 1/2016, I.A.

¶100

2/2016, I.A. 1/2025 and I.A. 1/2014 are dismissed.

¶101

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶102

DN/CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Chandraiah Gowda v. S R Lakshminarayana Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandraiah Gowda v. S R Lakshminarayana Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lohith M.S Vs Sri Krishna K .C

Sri. M. D. Sampath Vs Sri. M. S. Subbegowda

Pradeep Kumar Vs Rajath

Smt. Mahadevi Vs R.B. Ganesh

Loka Naika Vs Sri Naren Prasanna

Mr. Thomas Rodrigues Vs the State