Dismissed¶125

Sri.Nagasetty v. Sri.Ramasetty

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2025RSA/2056/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal u/s 100 CPC (Karnataka HC, Hunsur courts); bare suit for perpetual injunction maintainable without declaratory relief where defendants plead adverse possession, amounting to indirect admission of plaintiff's title; possession proved via registered sale deeds (Exs.P1, P8), mutation extract, tax receipts and complaint (Ex.P5); Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Bucchireddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 distinguished as inapplicable; first appellate court's reversal upheld; appeal dismissed, decree of permanent injunction confirmed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants: the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2013 in R.A.No.1/2009 (decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction with cost) stood confirmed; no order as to costs; pending I.As., if any, disposed of as not surviving. ¶125

Sri.Nagasetty Vs Sri.Ramasetty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶125

Issue for consideration

Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for perpetual injunction without seeking the relief of declaration, when the defendants have disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property? +1 more

¶78

Court's answer

By pleading in the written statement that they had acquired title by adverse possession, the defendants indirectly admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

¶114

Ratio / Principle

Since the defendants thereby admitted the plaintiff's title, the question of seeking a relief of declaration of title does not arise; the suit for perpetual injunction without a declaratory relief is maintainable, and the decision in Anathula Sudhakar (relied on by the defendants' counsel) is not applicable to the case on hand.

¶117

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, is just and proper.ratio¶118
Both substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 were answered in the affirmative, resulting in dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal and confirmation of the first appellate court's judgment and decree.ratio¶119

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Regular Second Appeal No. 2056 of 2013 (INJ-) u/s 100 CPC, decided 23.07.2025, coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok S.Kinagi (oral judgment). The defendants in O.S.No.96/2007 — a suit for perpetual injunction by a plaintiff claiming title under registered sale deeds Exs.P1 and P8 executed by vendor T.S.Dasasetty (purchase dated 06.12.1978) — pleaded in the written statement that they had acquired title by adverse possession. Held: such a plea amounts to an indirect admission of the plaintiff's title, so no relief of declaration was necessary and a bare suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable. The Supreme Court decision in ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCCHIREDDY (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS, (2008) 4 SCC 594 — whose proposition the Court did not dispute — was held not applicable to the case on hand (distinguished). Both substantial questions of law were answered in the affirmative: the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's dismissal and decreeing permanent injunction with cost. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2013 in R.A.No.1/2009 were confirmed; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2013 (INJ-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.NAGASETTY S/O DASASETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶9

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O DASASETTY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶10

SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O NAGASETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI DEVARAJA S/O NAGASETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶13

SRI MANJA @ MANJUNATHA S/O NAGASETTY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶14

SRI SHIVARAJA S/O DASASETTY, DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶15

6(A). SRI. HARISHA S/O SHIVARAJA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

6(B). SRI SANTHOSHA S/O SHIVARAJA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶19

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O SHIVARAJA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT THONDALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SRI.RAMASETTY S/O SHANIVARASETTY, (ON 12.04.2019 DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶25

1(A). SMT. SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE RAMASHETTY R/AT THONDAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105.

¶26

1(B). SMT. LOKESHWARI, AGED BOUT 51 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHETTY, D/O LATE RAMASHETTY, R/AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE, KAABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

1(C). SMT. SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O DODDA SHTTY, D/O LATE RAMASHETTY, R/AT B.R. KAVAL VILLAGE, HANGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105.

¶30

1(D). SMT. CHANDRAMMA, AGED BOUT 47 YEARS, W/O RAGAVENDRA D/O LATE RAMASHETTY, RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HONBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105.

¶31

1(E). SRI. BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE RAMASHETTY R/AT THONDAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E))

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.96/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, HUNSUR.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree 26.10.2013, passed in R.A.No.1/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur.

¶42

For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff.

¶43

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶44

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was purchased by him from his vendor, Sri T.S.Dasasetty and their sons, on 06.12.1978 for valuable consideration. On the basis of the registered sale deed, the katha was transferred to the name of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff is in absolute

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a lawful owner. The plaintiff is paying the tax to the concerned department. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and are trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants have not given any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

¶48

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement

¶49

denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit schedule property was acquired by the defendants from their ancestors, and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

in the suit schedule property. It is denied that the plaintiff

¶53

is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 100 years, and they have acquired the title by way of adverse possession. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit.

¶54

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned

¶55

pleadings, framed the following issues:

¶56

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of this suit?

¶57

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference of the defendants over the suit property?

¶58

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled relief as sought for?

¶59

4) What order or decree?

¶60

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined

¶61

himself as PW.1, and 18 documents were marked as

¶62

Exs.P1 to P18. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined 3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4 and 7

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both side, and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, and issue No.4 as per the final order and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.10.2008.

¶66

3.4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.96/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.1/2009 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:

¶67

1) Whether the plaintiff/appellant proves that as he is in lawful possession of the schedule property as the absolute owner there was interference from the side of the defendants?

¶68

2) Whether the interference in the impugned judgment is called for on account of it being capricious, perverse and illegal?

¶69

3) What order?

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

3.5. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties

¶73

and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.96/2007 was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with cost and by means of permanent injunction, the defendants or their authorized persons were restrained from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶74

3.6. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and

¶75

decree passed in R.A.No.1/2009, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶76

This Court, on 04.09.2024, admitted the appeal

¶77

to consider the following substantial question of law :

¶78

1) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for perpetual

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

injunction without seeking the relief of declaration, when the defendants have disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

¶82

2) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court?

¶83

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶84

the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶85

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have seriously disputed the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendants are in peaceful possession over the suit schedule property for more than 12 years and they have perfected their title by adverse possession. He submits that the mere suit for perpetual injunction without seeking a relief of declaration of title, is not maintainable.

¶86

To buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶87

case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCCHIREDDY (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 . He

¶88

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

submits that there is a serious dispute about the title and the said aspect was not properly reappreciated by the first Appellate Court and committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. He submits that the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶91

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff

¶92

supported the impugned judgments, and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶93

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶94

Reg. Substantial questions of law

¶95

No.1 and 2 : Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked and hence, discussed together to avoid the repetition of facts.

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from one T.S.Dasasetty under a registered sale deed in 1978 and the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records and the plaintiff paid the tax of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, and he has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents, marked as Ex.P1 is the original registered sale deed, Ex.P2 is the mutation extract, which discloses that based on Ex.P1, the name of the plaintiff was mutated as per the order dated 23.07.2004, Exs.P3 and P4 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.P5 is the copy of the complaint wherein the plaintiff has lodged a complaint against the defendants on 24.05.2007, Ex.P6 is the assessment extract of the suit schedule property which discloses the name of the plaintiff as a owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, Ex.P7 is the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Ex.P8 is the registered sale deed wherein the

¶100

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

plaintiff had acquired the suit property under Ex.D8, Ex.P9 is the original mortgage deed, Exs.P10 to P17 are the photographs, Ex.P18 is the statement of Narasimhaiah in O.S.No.66/2004. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 it was denied that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶103

In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief, and he deposed that the defendants had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 100 years and perfected their title by adverse possession. Further, to prove the defence, the defendants have produced the photographs marked as Exs.D1 and D2 are the photos, Ex.D3 is the Himbaraha, Exs.D4 and D5 are the NCR, Ex.D6 is the letter issued by the Gram Panchayath, Ex.D7 is the electoral list. Further, the defendants also examined 3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4. They have deposed that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit

¶104

13 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

schedule property, and they have denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶108

From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute that the plaintiff had acquired the property under Exs.P1 and P8 i.e., the registered sale deeds executed by T.S.Dasasetty.

¶109

From the perusal of the recitals of Exs.P1 and P8, it is clear that the vendor of the plaintiff had delivered the possession of the property purchased by the plaintiff under Exs.P1 and P8. The defendants did not challenge the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff as per Exs.P1 and P8. The defendants also did not challenge the mutation order as per Ex.P2. The records produced by the plaintiff disclose that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶110

The defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and claimed the title by adverse possession. By pleading adverse

¶111

14 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

possession, the defendants are indirectly admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When the defendants indirectly admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, hence, the question of seeking relief of declaration of title would not arise. The first Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the plaintiff has proved the possession over the suit schedule property and also by producing Ex.P5 i.e., a copy of the complaint wherein the plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendants alleging that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit schedule property, proceed the interference by the defendants.

¶115

Learned counsel for the defendant placed a reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCCHIREDDY (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in AIR (2008) 4 SCC 594. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶116

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

Admittedly, in the instant case, the defendants have pleaded in the written statement that they have acquired the title by way of adverse possession. That itself is sufficient to hold that the defendants have admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When the defendants have admitted the title of the suit schedule property, the question of seeking relief of declaration of title would not arise. The suit filed by the plaintiff for a perpetual injunction is maintainable. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is just and proper.

¶119

In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.

¶120

In view of the aforesaid facts, and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:28034 RSA No. 2056 of 2013

¶122

16 -

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

ORDER

¶125

i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶126

ii. The judgment and decree dated 26.10.2013, passed in R.A.No.1/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur is hereby confirmed.

¶127

iii. No order as to the costs.

¶128

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As’

¶129

if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.

¶130

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶131

SSB CT: BHK

Sri.Nagasetty v. Sri.Ramasetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Nagasetty v. Sri.Ramasetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Limited Vs M/S Ibm India Private Limited

Sri. Gopalappa Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

M/S Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Limited Vs M/S Ibm India Private Limited

Sri R Rangaswamy Vs Sri Rudraiah

Sharadamma @ Ammaiah Vs Bellamma

M/S Sharvani Pharma Pvt. Ltd., (in Liqn) Vs Nil