Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri K Sannasiddappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri K Sannasiddappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Substantial Question of Law 1: Whether the Trial Court's judgment and decree is justifiable in the absence of the evidence of an independent witness to prove the identification and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. +4 more

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for bare injunction, whether the granted land in Sy.No.19/P3 and Sy.No.19/2P are one and the same land is not a matter to be examined, unless there is a prayer for relief of declaration by either of the parties.

Key takeaways

Since the subject matter of the two grants are two different properties (plaintiff granted Sy.No.19/2P in 1971; defendants claim 3 acres in Sy.No.19/P3 through the 1982 grant to Narasaiah), the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the plaintiff's suit in respect of Sy.No.19/2P.ratio¶17
It is always open to the defendants to seek a declaration in respect of their granted land in Sy.No.19/P3; if such a suit is filed and a finding is made on the identity of the land, the injunction order granted in the present suit (confirmed by the First Appellate Court) would be subservient to the result of that comprehensive suit.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mr. Justice V Srishananda, oral judgment dated 03.09.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:34446), RSA No. 494 of 2022 (INJ) under S.100 CPC: The defendants-appellants (defendant No.1 Lakshmamma, widow of Narasaiah, and her sons Jayanna and Ramesha), claiming possession of 3 acres in Sy.No.19/P3, Muchaveeranahalli, through the grant dated 23.01.1982 in favour of Narasaiah, challenged the concurrent decrees granting the plaintiff-respondent (K Sannasiddappa) permanent injunction over Sy.No.19/2P (4 acres including karab, out of which 3 acres 34 guntas), granted to the plaintiff in LNDCR (NC) 207/1970-71 on 30.07.1971. Substantial questions raised non-identification of the property, absence of survey documents/boundary fixation, want of independent witness, and reliance only on RTCs (Ex.P-1 to P-17) and the certified grant certificate (Ex.P-18). Held, dismissing the appeal: in a suit for bare injunction, whether the two granted lands are one and the same cannot be looked into absent a prayer for declaration; the subject matter of the two grants being different properties, the courts below were justified in decreeing the injunction suit in respect of Sy.No.19/2P; the defendants remain free to sue for a declaration regarding Sy.No.19/P3, and any finding therein on identity would render the present injunction order subservient to that result.

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Substantial Question of Law 1: Whether the Trial Court's judgment and decree is justifiable in the absence of the evidence of an independent witness to prove the identification and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.¶¶72
2.
Substantial Question of Law 2: Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit even though the plaintiff produced no survey document to prove identification, possession, boundary and title over the property.¶¶73
The court held
In a suit for bare injunction, whether the granted land in Sy.No.19/P3 and Sy.No.19/2P are one and the same land is not a matter to be examined, unless there is a prayer for relief of declaration by either of the parties.ratio¶16
3.
Substantial Question of Law 3: Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit even though the plaint boundary shows Survey No.19/3P belonging to Smt. Lakshmamma towards the north, and the schedule in the decree of OS No.369/2014 does not show the plaintiff as the adjacent land owner.¶¶74
4.
Substantial Question of Law 4: Whether the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree is justified when based only on Ex.P-1 to P-17 (RTCs) and Ex.P-18 (certified copy of the grant certificate), in the absence of the grant register and the evidence of the author of the document, when the defendants denied title and possession and there is a decree in favour of the defendants in OS No.369/2014.¶¶75
5.
Substantial Question of Law 5: Whether the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are otherwise justifiable under the facts and circumstances of the case.¶¶79
The court held
Since the subject matter of the two grants are two different properties (plaintiff granted Sy.No.19/2P in 1971; defendants claim 3 acres in Sy.No.19/P3 through the 1982 grant to Narasaiah), the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the plaintiff's suit in respect of Sy.No.19/2P.ratio¶17