Sri v Chandrashekaraiah Vs Sri Shivarudraiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri v Chandrashekaraiah Vs Sri Shivarudraiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit (suit for bare/permanent injunction). +1 more

Court's answer

In a suit for bare permanent injunction, other than the issue of possession as on the date of filing of the suit, the Court cannot touch upon the title issue.

Ratio / Principle

No error was committed by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court in granting the relief of permanent injunction based on oral and documentary evidence; the concurrent finding that the plaintiff was in possession as on the date of suit does not merit interference.

Key takeaways

The mutation extracts (Exs.P2 and P17) and RTC extracts (Exs.P3 to P8 and Exs.P13 to P16), together with the family arrangement dated 20.04.1974 and Panchayath arrangement dated 20.12.1974, clearly disclose that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.ratio¶53
Since the application to send Ex.P1 to a handwriting expert was dismissed and the order attained finality (defendant No.4 did not challenge it), the appellant cannot now raise the question with regard to Ex.P1.ratio¶53
The appeal against the revenue entries was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and attained finality; the appellant ought to have filed a suit for declaration instead of pursuing the appeals.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (INJ) dismissed at admission stage (H.P. Sandesh J.). Suit OS No.102/1997 (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi) for bare permanent injunction was decreed on 26.10.2013 in favour of the plaintiff; the first appeal RA No.239/2014 was dismissed on 23.02.2022 confirming the decree. Held: in a suit for bare permanent injunction, the only relevant issue is possession as on the date of filing of the suit, and the Court cannot touch upon the title issue. The plaintiff's possession stood established by the family arrangement dated 20.04.1974, the Panchayath arrangement dated 20.12.1974, mutation extracts Exs.P2 and P17, and RTC extracts Exs.P3 to P8 and P13 to P16. The defendant's application under Order 26 Rule 10(a) read with Section 75(E) CPC to refer Ex.P1 to a handwriting expert was dismissed on 14.09.2012 and, being unchallenged, attained finality, so Ex.P1 could not be reagitated. The defendant's appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara against the revenue entries was dismissed on 01.07.1999 and attained finality; the appellant ought to have filed a suit for declaration instead. No substantial question of law arises in a bare injunction suit; the Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC was dismissed.

NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2022 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. V CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK - 562 120 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SAMEER S N., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

SRI SHIVARUDRAIAH S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,

SRI R V SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE VEERANNA, ABATED ON 07-04-2004

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

SRI V. SHADAKSHARAPPA

S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK - 562 120 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

SMT PUTTAMMA W/O LATE VEERANNA, DECEASED BY HER LR - R4

4. SMT LALITHAMMA

W/O PUTTAREVANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HONNANARAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 120, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.239/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED IN OS NO.102/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI AND ETC.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property in terms of document Ex.P1 and consequently, the mutation - Ex.P2 came into existence as well as Ex.P17 and also RTC stands in the name of the plaintiff in terms of Exs.P3 to P8 and Exs.P13 to P16 and sought for the relief of permanent injunction. Defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement before the Trial Court disputing the document of Ex.P1 and also the revenue document and apart from that also, he has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara and the same also dismissed vide order dated 01.07.1999. The plaintiff relies upon the documents which have been placed on

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

record i.e., Ex.P1 to P17 and the Trial Court also having considered the material on record, the 4^th defendant being the family member of plaintiff and other defendants has gone to the extent of denying that the plaintiff is his mother and has also gone to the extent of filing an affidavit to the effect that his father Late. Veeranna had an illegitimate relationship with Puttamma and the same is discussed in paragraph No.33 and also in paragraph No.35 also taken note of the defence of the defendant and he claims that he has been in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit but not placed any documentary proof with regard to his possession is concerned and hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff relying upon documents of Exs.P1, P2 and P17 and RTC extract - Exs.P3 to P8 and P13 to P16. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point that whether plaintiff No.1 proved her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether it requires interference of this Court?. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record particularly documentary evidence which have been

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

placed on record and also taken note of the document which have been produced by the defendant i.e., appellant Ex.D1 - RTC extract in respect of item No.1 for the year 1989 to 1993 and it shows the name of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as per MR No.6/1983-84 and also MR No.4/1985-86 and partition in column No.(9) and the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in column No.12(2). Exs.P3, P4 and P5 are the RTC extracts in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule properties showing the name of plaintiff for item No.1 as per MR No.7/1995-96 and also the names of defendant Nos.1 to 4 for the remaining extent as per the partition in MR No.5/1983-84. The Appellate Court having taken note of these documents and also reappraised both oral and documentary evidence and also taken note of Ex.P11 is the registered deed dated 13.07.1999 and it recites that the plaintiff mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of Sri Siddashivacharya Swamy Gavi Mutt for Rs.15,000/- by delivering the possession for 25 years and within the said period, this mortgage deed is to be taken back by paying mortgage amount. Ex.P12 is the redemption of mortgage deed dated 09.06.2004 and it recites that the plaintiff redeemed the said mortgage. Having taken note of all

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

these documents in paragraph No.26 in detail discussed that an application was filed under Order 26 Rule 10(a) read with Section 75(E) of CPC and the said application was dismissed. An attempt was made by the defendant before the Trial Court to send the document of Ex.P1 for handwriting expert and same was dismissed on 14.09.2012 and suit was decreed on 26.10.2013 after almost one year and defendant No.4 has not challenged the said dismissal order. Moreover, in the absence of Ex.P1 also the other documents are taken note of and other documents also clearly discloses that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and confirm the judgement of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, Court has to take note of who has been in possession of the property. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that document of Ex.P1 is disputed and also an application was filed to send the same to

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

the handwriting expert and the same was dismissed and the learned counsel also would contend that Ex.D1 doesn't confirm to the date of document, the ownership or possession and the learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the other documents which have been placed before the Court also not confirm any right in favour of the plaintiff and fails to take note of the document Ex.P1 and cannot be looked into and the learned counsel also would contend that this Court has to frame substantial question of law that as per Section 49(c) of the Registration Act, the document doesn't confirm any right in favour of the plaintiff and also would contend that defendant No.4 questioned Ex.P1 and the same was not taken note of and Appellate court also committed an error in holding that Ex.P11 - registered mortgage deed and Ex.P12 - redemption of mortgage deed executed subsequent to the filing of the suit and considering the same, confirmed the judgement of Trial Court and hence, this Court has to frame substantial question of law.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also considering the material on record and suit is filed only for bare injunction. The issue between the parties is with regard to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff mainly relies upon the document of family arrangement dated 20.04.1974 and also the Panchayath Arrangement document dated 20.12.1974 and it is also important to note that in order to prove the factum of possession, mainly relies open the document of mutation extract Exs.P2 and P17 and so also the RTC extract Exs.P3 to P8 and also Exs.P13 to 16 and all these documents clearly discloses that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and when such being the case, even though defendant denies the document of Ex.P1 and an attempt was made to send the document to the handwriting expert and the said application was also dismissed in the month of September but judgment was delivered after one year and ultimately the order passed by the Trial Court was attained finality and now cannot raise the question with regard to Ex.P1 and apart from that, the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff was

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

HC-KAR

also challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and the same attained finality and when such being the case, appellant ought to have filed the suit for declaration when the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff was challenged and dismissed and not made any such attempt, instead of, filed the appeal before the Appellate Court as well as before this Court.

When such being the case, when both the Courts have taken note of the fact that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff is in possession of the property, other than the issue regarding possession in a suit for permanent injunction, the Court cannot touch upon the title issue and hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in granting the relief as sought based on oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence placed on record and hence, I do not find any merit to admit and frame substantial question of law as contended by the appellant's counsel making suggestions to frame substantial question of law and such suggestions would not arise in a case for bare injunction suit.

NC: 2025:KHC:23698 RSA No. 711 of 2022

10 -

HC-KAR

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46