Sri C K Umesh Vs Smt Channamma

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 9.1.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 14.1.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.154/2007 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶28

IN RSA NO. 5/2020 BETWEEN:

¶29

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE C K UMESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶30

SRI MOHAN

¶31

S/O LATE C K UMESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

3. SRI YOGEESHA

¶35

S/O LATE C K UMESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶36

SRI PARAMESHA S/O LATE C K UMESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶37

ALL ARE R/AT OPP. TO MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL ROAD GUNDAPPA STREET, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 201

¶38

...APPELLANTS

¶39

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD H N., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

SMT. S B CHANNAMMA W/O LATE C K JANARDHAN SETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR MARCO MESS VIJAYAPURA EXTENSION CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 201.

¶42

...RESPONDENT

¶43

(BY SRI. V.D. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶44

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.30/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.04.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.92/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

In R.S.A. No.5 of 2020:

¶51

This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2019 passed in RA No.30/2018 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur ('First Appellate Court' for short), and the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018 passed in OS No.92/2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagalur ('Trial Court' for short).

¶52

For convenience, the parties are referred to

¶53

based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff.

¶54

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

¶55

3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she

¶56

is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the

¶60

suit property, the Mangalore-tile house measuring 37 x 17 sq.ft. situated at Gunddappa Street, Chikkamagalur City. Earlier, the property was owned and possessed by mother-in-law of the plaintiff by name Smt.

¶61

Channamma W/o Kalinga Shetty. She had purchased the said property measuring 17 x 61 sq.ft. under a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1967 from its lawful vendor and she was put in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During her lifetime, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of her son Sri. C.K.Ramachandra to an extent of 17 x 25 sq.ft. and also in favour of her son Sri. C.K.Umesh to an extent 14 x 24 sq.ft. The said C.K.Umesh is no more. Defendant No.1 is the wife and defendants No.2 to 4 are the children of C.K.Umesh. They have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had purchased the schedule property from her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law C.K.Ramachandra under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.2007. Since

¶62

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. C.K.Umesh died on 04.06.2007. The deceased C.K.Umesh had tried to trespass into the suit schedule property to encroach the same. The plaintiff had resisted the illegal act of C.K.Umesh and lodged a complaint against him before the concerned Police. The Police have not taken any action against C.K.Umesh. Plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.154/2007 seeking a relief of perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed. During the pendency of the appeal in RA No.18/2011, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. It is contented that, the appeal in RA No.18/2011 filed by the defendant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed in OS No.154/2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an execution petition in EP No.36/2013. During the pendency of the execution petition, C.K.Umesh died. At that time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to allow

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

them to reside in the suit schedule property for performing the rituals/ceremonies C.K.Umesh. The plaintiff and her husband, considering the relationship between the parties to the suit, permitted the defendants to reside in the suit schedule property. But, after completion of funeral ceremony, the defendants failed to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and possession.

¶68

Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and defendants No.2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that, the plaintiff has given a wrong boundaries on the eastern side of the property measuring 37 x 17 sq.ft. On the eastern side of the property measuring 37 x 17 sq.ft, the house property measuring 24 x 17 sq.ft. belonging to the defendants is situated and it has been gifted to C.K.Umesh by his mother Channamma. It was contended that,

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Channamma had purchased the property measuring 17 x 61 sq.ft. under a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1967. The defendants were not aware of the gift deed executed by Channamma in favour of C.K.Ramchandra and it was denied that Channamma gifted the property in favour of C.K.Umesh and C.K.Ramchandra. They admitted that, the plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.154/2007 against C.K.Umesh. The said suit was decreed and the appeal was preferred by C.K.Umesh in RA No.18/2011 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagalur. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013. The defendant preferred a second appeal in RSA No.425/2013, which is pending for consideration before this Court. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶72

The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the

¶73

parties, framed the following issues:

¶74

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

¶75

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants occupied the suit schedule property 4.5.2015 on with the permission of the plaintiff to conduct the funeral ceremony of Late Sri C.K.Umesh and thereafter failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff?

¶78

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs sought for in the suit?

¶79

4. What order and decree?

¶80

The plaintiff, to substantiate her case,

¶81

examined herself as PW-1 and marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1, examined one witness as DW-2 and marked one document as Ex.D1.

¶82

The Trial Court, after hearing on both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 as per the final order. Consequently, the Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of

¶83

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

the suit schedule property and directed the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment. It was also made clear that ,if the defendants failed to vacate the same within the said period, the plaintiff is at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

¶86

The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and

¶87

decree passed in OS No.92/2016, preferred an appeal in RA No.30/2018 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur.

¶88

The First Appellate Court, after hearing the

¶89

learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:

¶90

1. Whether the appellants have made out valid grounds to allow I.A. No.II to IV?

¶91

2. Whether the appellants establish that the findings of Trial Court on issues are contrary to law and facts?

¶92

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

3. Whether the appellants establish that the judgment of Trial Court is perverse and conspicuously erroneous and is liable to be set aside?

¶95

4. What order?

¶96

The First Appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered points No.1 to 3 in the negative and point No.4 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018 passed in OS No.92/2016 was confirmed.

¶97

The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

¶98

Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and also the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶99

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that, Channamma had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1967 and during her lifetime, she had executed a registered gift deed, wherein

¶100

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

she has gifted portions of the property in favour of two sons i.e., C.K.Ramachandra and C.K.Umesh measuring 17 x 25 sq.ft. and 14 x 24 sq.ft. respectively. He submits that, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He also submits that, the judgment and decree passed in OS No.154/2007 will become redundant in view of the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff in OS No.92/2016, wherein the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and possession. He also submits that, in case if the Court comes to a conclusion that there are no merits in the appeal, liberty be reserved to the defendants to work out their remedy in the execution petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶103

14 . Per contra , learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the property was owned and possessed by Channamma and during her lifetime, she executed a

¶104

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

registered gift deed in favour of her two sons i.e., C.K.Ramachandra and C.K.Umesh. Based on the registered gift deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property in question. He also submits that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from Channamma and C.K.Ramachandra under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.2007. Since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 15.05.2007, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property measuring to an extent of 17 x 37 sq.ft. He also submits that, the defendants, after the demise of C.K.Umesh, requested the plaintiffs to provide accommodation for time being to perform the funeral ceremony of the deceased C.K.Umesh. He submits that, the plaintiff provided the suit schedule property to the defendants for temporary use. He submits that, after completion of funeral ceremony, the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate and hand over

¶107

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

the possession of the suit schedule property. He submits

¶110

that, the defendants refused to vacate the suit schedule property. He submits that, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property to an extent of 17 x 37 sq.ft. The Trial Court has rightly declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court had re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, he submits that, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶111

This Court, vide order dated 10.01.2020, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:

¶112

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

1. Whether the Courts below were justified in deciding the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff inspite of the fact that in another suit filed by the very same plaintiff in O.S.No. 154/2007, when an order of permanent injunction was granted to the respondent herein and was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, this appellant approached this Court in RSA No.425/2013 and this Court by order dated 28.08.2013 ordered that the parties shall maintain status-quo till further orders and when the same is pending consideration at the hands of this Court, whether the Courts below were justified in proceeding to decide the second suit filed by the very same respondent-plaintiff?

¶115

2. Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit when admittedly the suit schedule property being a Mangalore tiled house was never divided by metes and bounds at the time of execution of gift deeds dated 04.11.2004 in favour of C.K.Ramachandra and C.K.Umesh, being the children of Smt.S.B.Channamma? the executant

¶116

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

3. Whether the Courts below were justified in ignoring the discrepancy in the measurement pointed out at Ex.Pl and Ex.D1, which were fatal to the case of the plaintiff?

¶119

4. Whether the Courts below were justified in granting the relief of possession in the absence of proper identification of the property in question?

¶120

Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.1:

¶121

There is no dispute that the plaintiff, before filing of this suit, filed a suit in OS No.154/2007 seeking for a relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, after full fledged trial, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011. C.K.Umesh, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No.154/2007, preferred an appeal in RA No.18/2011. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment

¶122

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

and decree dated 09.01.2013 and confirmed the judgment

¶125

and decree passed in OS No.154/2007. The legal representatives of the deceased C.K.Umesh, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No.154/2007 and RA No.18/2011, filed appeal in RSA No.425/2013. This Court, vide order dated 28.08.2013, directed the parties to maintain status-quo . During the pendency of the appeal in RSA No.425/2013, the plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.92/2016 for the relief of declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property based on the register sale deed dated 15.05.2007 executed by C.K.Ramchandra and Channamma. Though this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo in regard to the possession of the suit schedule property, but this Court has not stayed the further proceedings in OS No.92/2016. There was no legal impediment for the Trial Court to proceed the suit in OS No.92/2016. The Trial Court was justified in proceeding with the suit in OS No.92/2016. As observed above, there was no interim order of stay of

¶126

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

further proceedings in RSA No.425/2013. The Courts below were justified in proceeding to decide the suit in OS No.92/2016.

¶129

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

¶130

Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.2:

¶131

Admittedly, the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by Channamma. During her lifetime, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of C.K.Ramchandra and C.K.Umesh, and gifted the property measuring to an extent of 17 x 25 sq.ft. in favour of C.K.Ramchandra and 14 x 24 sq.ft. in favour of C.K.Umesh under the registered gift deed dated 04.11.2004. Based on the registered gift deed, C.K.Ramachandra and C.K.Umesh became the absolute owners to an extent of 17 x 25 sq.ft. and 14 x 24 sq.ft. respectively. The plaintiff had purchased the property from Channamma i.e., mother-in-law of the plaintiff and from her brother-in-law C.K.Ramachandra under the registered sale deed dated 15.05.2007. The

¶132

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

vendor of the plaintiff had put the plaintiff in possession of the property under registered sale deed dated 15.05.2007. The plaintiff, to prove her ownership and possession, produced the document Ex.P1 the registered sale deed executed by C.K.Ramachandra and Channamma in favour of the plaintiff. It discloses that, the plaintiff had purchased the property to the extent of 37 x 17 sq.ft. Exs.P2 and P3 are the Khata extracts, which disclose that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in OS No.154/2007, which discloses that the plaintiff herein filed a suit against C.K.Umesh for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining C.K.Umesh from interfering and obstructing over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, after full-fledged trial, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in RA No.18/2011, which discloses that C.K.Umesh, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed

¶135

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

in OS No.154/2007, preferred an appeal in RA No.18/2011

¶138

on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagalur. The First Appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal filed by C.K.Umesh vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the gift deed, which discloses that Channamma executed the gift deed in favour of C.K.Ramchandra and C.K.Umesh. During the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1. She reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the document Ex.D1 the certified copy of the gift deed (Ex.P6), which discloses that Channamma gifted the portions of the suit property in favour of C.K.Ramachandra and C.K.Umesh. Defendant No.1 is the wife of C.K.Umesh and defendants No.2 to 4 are the children of C.K.Umesh. The defendants are admitting the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit

¶139

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

schedule property. The Trial Court, considering Ex.P1 i.e., the registered sale deed executed by Channamma and C.K.Ramachandra in favour of the plaintiff, has rightly held that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants have not produced any record to show that in what capacity the defendants or C.K.Umesh was/were in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff permitted the legal representatives of C.K.Umesh i.e., the defendants to reside in the suit schedule property only for performing funeral ceremony. After the completion of funeral ceremony, the plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over and vacate the suit schedule property. The defendants, despite request, did not vacate it. Further, C.K.Umesh was also claiming to be the owner based on the registered gift deed dated 04.11.2004. Entire house property boundaries were shown in both the registered gift deeds dated 04.11.2004. The house was not divided by metes and bounds at the time of execution of registered

¶142

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

gift deeds dated 04.11.2004 executed in favour of C.K.Ramchandra and C.K.Umesh. If the house property was not divided by meets and bounds at the time of execution of a registered gift deed dated 04.11.2004, the remedy left to the defendants is to file a suit for partition and separate possession. The defendants have not filed a suit for partition and separate possession till date. The Trial Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶145

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

¶146

Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.3:

¶147

The defendants have contended that, there is a discrepancy in the measurement.

¶148

Insofar as discrepancy in the measurement is concerned, it is not a substantial question of law. In view of the proposition laid down by this Court in the case of

¶149

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶150

HC-KAR

¶151

Smt. Muniyamma Vs. Chikkanarayanappa¹ ,

¶152

Substantial Question of Law No.3 does not arise for consideration and is answered accordingly.

¶153

Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.4:

¶154

The Courts below, considering the entire evidence on record and also that the defendants have failed to prove the nature of possession over the suit schedule property, have rightly granted a relief of possession. In view of the same, both Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. I concur with the findings.

¶155

In RSA No.425/2013:

¶156

The appellants filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013 passed in RA No.18/2011 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagalur ('First Appellate Court', for short)

¶157

1 RSA No.469/2015, decided on 24.04.2024

¶158

24 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶159

HC-KAR

¶160

and the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011 passed in OS No.154/2007 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikkamagalur ('Trial Court' for short).

¶161

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The deceased appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

¶162

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

¶163

23.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant

¶164

for the relief of perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deeds executed by C.K.Ramchandra and Channamma w/o Kalingashetty. The vendors of the plaintiff have put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant has no right to title or interest over the suit schedule properties and is trying to interfere with the

¶165

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff requested the defendant not to cause any obstruction or interference over the suit schedule properties. Despite the request made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not give any heed to the request. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for perpetual injunction.

¶168

The defendant filed a written statement denying

¶169

the averments made in the plaint and contended that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶170

The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the

¶171

parties, framed the following issues:

¶172

1) Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

¶173

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is interfering in the peaceful

¶174

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

¶177

3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

¶178

4) What order or decree?

¶179

The plaintiff, to substantiate her case,

¶180

examined herself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked ten documents as Exs.P1 to P10. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

¶181

The Trial Court, after recording the evidence,

¶182

hearing on both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered Issues No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and Issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011 and the defendant was restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.

¶183

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶184

HC-KAR

¶185

The deceased defendant, aggrieved by the

¶186

judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in RA No.18/2011 on the file of the First Appellate Court.

¶187

The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, frame the following points for consideration:

¶188

1. Whether the plaintiff has proved her actual and physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as per the measurement and boundaries shown in the plaint schedule?

¶189

2. Whether the impugned judgment of the trial Court is against law, fact, evidence and probabilities of the case and liable to be intervened by this Court?

¶190

3. What order or decree?

¶191

The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating

¶192

the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point

¶193

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶194

HC-KAR

¶195

No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative, point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed with cost vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013 and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶196

The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees, filed this regular second appeal.

¶197

During the pendency of this appeal, the original defendant died leaving behind his legal representatives. His legal representatives were brought on record.

¶198

Heard the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶199

Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased defendant submits that, in view of the filing of the suit in OS No.92/2016, the judgment and decree passed has become redundant. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration. He submits that, in

¶200

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶201

HC-KAR

¶202

view of the filing of subsequent suit for possession, the injunction granted by the Trial Court becomes redundant. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶203

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, during the pendency of the first appeal in RA No.18/2011, the defendant has dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to file a suit in OS No.92/2016. He also submits that, in view of dismissal of appeal in RSA No.5/2020, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, he prays to dispose of the appeal.

¶204

This Court admitted the appeal on 28.08.2013 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

¶205

1) In a suit for bare injunction filed by respondent without seeking any declaration about existence of Oni, is the judgment of the Trial Court sustainable when the defendant has seriously disputed existence of such passage between the properties?

¶206

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶207

HC-KAR

¶208

2) Was it not required for the Courts below to relegate the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration about existence or nonexistence of common passage and only then to decide the lis between the parties.

¶209

Reg. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 & 2 :

¶210

There is no dispute that the plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.154/2007 for the relief of perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011. The defendant, C.K.Umesh, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No.154/2007, filed an appeal in RA No.18/2011. The said appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, C.K.Umesh, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

¶211

During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.92/2016 for the relief of declaration of title and possession. In the said suit, the plaintiff has

¶212

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:39619 RSA No. 425 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5 of 2020

¶213

HC-KAR

¶214

contended that the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties. Hence, filed a suit for the relief of possession. As the plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title and possession, in view of the plaintiff's filing of subsequent suit OS No.92/2016, the judgment and decree passed in OS No.154/2017 and the judgment and decree passed in RA No.18/2011 have become redundant.

¶215

In view of the same, both the substantial questions of law do not arise for consideration.

¶216