Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri Chikka Bache Gowda

SRI. CHIKKA BACHE GOWDA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT GODALUMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶25

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKAMARITHAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT GODALUMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025, APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS ABATED)

¶28

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15024/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.289/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:49588 RSA No. 507 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveatorrespondent No.1.

¶36

Though there is a divergent finding, at the first instance, Trial Court granted the relief of permanent injunction and the same is reversed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court taken note of document of Ex.D5 which is the sale deed in favour of the mother of the plaintiffs which discloses the extent of the property as east to west 20 yards and north to sought 15 yards. However, the mother executed the Will in terms of Ex.P6 measuring east to west 70 yards and north to sought 15 yards and boundaries mentioned in both the documents are different i.e., in Ex.D5- sale deed and Ex.P6Will. The plaintiffs also did not produce the sale deed of the mother, but the defendants had produced the same before the Court, wherein the extent is different.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:49588 RSA No. 507 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.20 in detail taken note of all these material on record and in paragraph No.21 observed that there is no dispute, in a suit for bare injunction, the Courts can incidentally decide the title, if it was necessary for the adjudication of dispute. In a suit for bare injunction, the duty is upon the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit schedule property with specific boundaries to prove the identity of the property. In a case where the plaintiffs claim possession based on the document through which the title is acquired, there must be evidence to show that it is the same property on which she claims her possession. But having taken note of material available on record, particularly the schedule mentioned in the plaint with regard to area i.e., east to west 120 feet and north to south 45 feet, wherein also it is stated that plaintiffs have constructed a residential house in the land measuring to an extent of east to west 35 feet and north to south 27 feet towards western side situated at Godlumuddenahalli Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and boundaries are also given and this boundary not tallies with Ex.D5 original sale deed and Ex.P6 Will and both are having different boundaries and area taking into note of the same, the

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:49588 RSA No. 507 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has erred in granting the relief. When such being the case, it is not noticed by the First Appellate Court that when the claim made in respect of possession is not in consonance with the original sale deed Ex.D5 and the extent of land is also modified in the Will executed by the mother and when possession is also not established, question of granting the relief of permanent injunction to the extent of what the plaintiffs are claiming does not arise when there is no material to evidence the extent of possession what they are claiming and the First Appellate Court has not committed any error. Hence, not a case to admit and frame any substantial question of law.

¶45