Cross second appeals over a panchayat-granted site in Survey No.492. The plaintiff failed to prove lawful grant or possession; courts below concurrently dismissed his injunction suit. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal but set aside the first appellate court's unwarranted finding on defendant No.1's possession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2025:KHC:47467 RSA No. 1762 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 1324 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1762 OF 2012 (INJ) C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1324 OF 2012 (INJ)
IN RSA No. 1762/2012
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE B.C. CHANAPPA R/O BYRAPATNA CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
1(B). UMADEVI D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NC: 2025:KHC:47467 RSA No. 1762 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 1324 of 2012
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/AT BYRAPATNA VILLAGE CHANNAPTNA TALUK, MALUR HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C); R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 16.6.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2012 (OLD NO.R.A.12/2010) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.98/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), CHANNAPATNA.
HC-KAR
IN RSA NO. 1324/2012
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/O BYRAPATNA VILLAGE CHANNAPTNA TALUK, MALLUR HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.06.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.98/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., CHANNAPATNA.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arise out of judgment and decree
dated 16.06.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channapattana, District Ramanagar, which arose out of judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Channapatna, in OS.No.98/2005. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and decree.
2. RSA No.1324/2012 is filed by the plaintiff and
RSA No.1762/2012 is filed by defendant No.1. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
HC-KAR
Khata No.166/3 was granted in the name of one Kempangowda by the Pradhan of Mallur Mandal Panchayath on 25.01.1991 and the said grantee paid a sum of Rs.2,800/- for the grant of the land. The plaintiff purchased the said property by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.2003. Thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records. He has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and he has been paying the tax to the panchayath.
suit property. According to defendants, totally 164 sites were formed in Survey No.492 during the year 1973 and
HC-KAR
said sites were distributed to the beneficiaries. The said
sites were measuring 180 X 45 feet. Therefore, no land was vested with the Panchayath in Survey No.492 to grant any land in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of any portion of Survey No.492 or property bearing No.166/3. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the suit.
Patra. A resolution was passed by the defendant No.2 for the purpose of distributing the sites in respect of 164 persons. The said list was approved by the State Government. No records were available in the Panchayat
regarding the creation of the khata of the alleged suit schedule property either in the name of Kempankegowda or subsequently in the name of the plaintiff. The sites
HC-KAR
were allotted by the Tahsildar. The alleged grant claimed by the plaintiff is false and in violation of the applicable conditions. Defendant No.2 has also denied the plaintiff’s possession through his vendor and prayed to dismiss the suit.
" 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of defendants with his possession and enjoyment over the suit property as alleged in the plaint?
3. What order or decree?"
witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 20 documents,
as per Exs.P-1 to P-20. The defendants examined one witness as DW-1 and marked documents as Exs.D-1 to D- 11.
HC-KAR
" 1. Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court?
2. What order?"
NC: 2025:KHC:47467 RSA No. 1762 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 1324 of 2012
HC-KAR
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by the
impugned judgment.
IN RSA NO.1762/2012
"i. Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in observing that "defendant No.1 was not in possession of the property", though that was not an issue framed in this case?"
IN RSA NO.1324/2012
"i. When the plaintiff purchased the suit property and came in possession of it in the year 2003 from its allottee, and later when this sale deed was cancelled, whether the plaintiff could protect his possession by obtaining a decree of injunction till he is dispossessed in due course of law?"
HC-KAR
RSA No.1324/2012 submits that the land was granted in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. At the time of sale, possession was delivered to him, and Khata was duly made in his name. After 23 years the grant made in favour of the grantee was cancelled; mere cancellation of the grant is not sufficient, but the panchayath has to take possession of the land in accordance with the law. Without taking possession, the defendants tried to interfere in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Therefore,
the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not made out a case that they tried to take possession of the property in accordance with law and there are no materials on record to show that any
steps were taken by the Panchayath to recover the possession. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property until he is legally
HC-KAR
dispossessed from the said property. The Courts below failed to properly consider this point and came to a wrong conclusion. Hence, prayed to set aside the judgment passed by the Courts below and allow the appeal.
those circumstances, mere entries in the Panchayath record cannot be grounds to believe that the plaintiff or his vendor was in possession of the suit property. The
HC-KAR
Panchayath, in its written statement, has specifically denied the right of the Pradhan, if any, to grant the land or issue Hakkupatra. The Panchayath also denied handing over the possession of the property and has stated that there are no records in their office to show that the entries were made in accordance with the law in the Panchayath records. Therefore, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his case that he has been in possession of the property.
HC-KAR
though defendant No.1 has been asserting that she is in possession of the said land and it is part of her agricultural land, no issues were framed in this regard. Defendant No.1 produced records to oppose the contentions of the plaintiff. The Trial Court has rightly accepted the same and held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property. But the First Appellate Court gave a finding in its judgment that defendant No.1 was also not in possession of the property. The said finding was unwarranted. It was not a suit filed by the defendant No.1 and she has not made any counterclaim. Under those circumstances, the said finding is not tenable. Therefore, prayed to set aside the said finding and allow the appeal, filed by the defendant No.1.
decree on the weakness of the case of defendants. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have a concurrent
HC-KAR
view that the plaintiff was not able to prove that his predecessor in title was a grantee of the suit land in accordance with law and possession was handed over to him. Both the Courts below held that plaintiff was not able to prove his lawful possession of the suit land.
NC: 2025:KHC:47467 RSA No. 1762 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 1324 of 2012
HC-KAR
Ex.D.11. It pertains to a site formed in Survey No.492 of Mallur Mandal Panchayath. The said Hakkupatra was signed by the Tahsildar. It supports contentions of defendants. Ex.P.2 is a doubtful document. At the cost of repetition, the appellant is unable to prove that pradhan of Mandal Panchayath had any authority to issue Hakkupatra. Hence, Ex.P.2 is of no value and on that basis plaintiff cannot become owner and come in possession. Therefore, consequent to the said Ex.P.2, any records that were mutated in the panchayath will not give right to the plaintiff in respect of a factious property, which was not at all in existence as on the date of alleged allotment.
HC-KAR
Ex.P.2. Therefore, a question of taking possession by the Panchayath in accordance with the law does not arise. The Courts below appreciated & reappreciated on the basis of available materials concurrently held that the plaintiff utterly failed to prove possession over the suit property. Under such circumstances, granting of equitable relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed in RSA No.1324/2012 is answered against the plaintiff.
HC-KAR
Appellate Court even considered the defence of defendant
No.1 and observed that defendant No.1 was unable to prove her possession of the property. The said observations/findings required to be set aside. Accordingly, points raised in RSA No.1762/2012 are answered in favour of defendant No.1.
ORDER
i) RSA No.1324/2012 is dismissed.
ii) RSA No.1762/2012 is allowed in
part.
iii) The observation made by the First Appellate Court in RA No.23/2012 dated 16.06.2012 regarding the possession of defendant No.1 is hereby set aside.
iv) The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in RA No.23/2012 (except above observation) as well as the judgment and
NC: 2025:KHC:47467 RSA No. 1762 of 2012 C/W RSA No. 1324 of 2012
HC-KAR
decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.98/2005 dated 30.11.2009 are confirmed.
Registry is directed to send back the records along
with a copy of this judgment to the Courts below.
Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE
AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff could claim a decree of permanent injunction based on a grant (Hakkupatra) allegedly issued by the Panchayat Pradhan without authority?
Whether the First Appellate Court could record a finding on defendant No.1's possession when no issue was framed and no counterclaim made?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Lakshmamma
K. Lingegowda (dead by LRs) - Smt. Venkatalakshmamma
Umadevi
B.L. Jagadeesh
The Secretary Malur Gramapanchayath
The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath, Channapatna
Umesh M Adiga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
