Dismissed¶71

Revanna v. Smt. Latha

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2025RSA/749/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; RSA No.749/2025 (INJ); Section 100 CPC; second appeal dismissed; bare permanent injunction suit; possession as on date of suit; sale deed Ex.P1; tax paid receipts; khatha extract; Commissioner report Ex.P8 in O.S.No.351/2012; R.F.A.No.1143/2019 pending; Survey No.79/2 Sathagalli Kasaba Hobli Mysuru; 30 guntas acquired vide Gazette Notification 28.05.1991; 22 guntas retained claim; no substantial question of law; concurrent findings affirmed.

What did the court decide?

In a suit for bare permanent injunction, the court must examine whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. ¶63

Revanna Vs Smt. Latha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff (respondent herein) was in possession of the suit schedule property (Site No.424 carved out of Survey No.79/2, Sathagalli, Mysuru) on the date of filing the suit for permanent injunction. +2 more

¶46

Court's answer

In a suit for bare permanent injunction, the court must examine whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

On the material on record (sale deed Ex.P1, tax paid receipts Exs.P2 and P3, khatha extract Ex.P6, tax paid receipt Ex.P7 and the Court Commissioner's report Ex.P8 filed in O.S.No.351/2012), the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and the First Appellate Court confirmed that finding.

¶63

Key takeaways

Nothing was placed on record by the appellants/defendants to show that the suit site falls within the area of land retained by them.ratio¶67
No ground exists to admit the second appeal or frame any substantial question of law; the concurrent findings of the courts below do not warrant interference.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.), oral judgment dated 22.07.2025 in RSA No.749/2025 (INJ) under Section 100 CPC: Regular second appeal by Revanna, Shivanna and Vinod R. against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 31.01.2025 in R.A.No.254/2024 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru) confirming the decree dated 30.08.2024 in O.S.No.619/2020 (VIII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru), whereby permanent injunction was granted in favour of Smt. Latha over Site No.424 carved out of Survey No.79/2, Sathagalli, Mysuru. Held: in a suit for bare permanent injunction the enquiry is whether the plaintiff was in possession as on the date of filing the suit; sale deed Ex.P1, tax paid receipts Exs.P2/P3/P7, khatha extract Ex.P6 and the Court Commissioner's report Ex.P8 (filed in O.S.No.351/2012) establish the plaintiff's possession; nothing on record shows the suit site falls within the 22 guntas of Survey No.79/2 claimed to be retained by the defendants after acquisition of 30 guntas vide Gazette Notification dated 28.05.1991 under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition Act; no substantial question of law arises. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.749 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

REVANNA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶11

SHIVANNA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶12

VINOD R., S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, by DEVIKA M MYSURU-562 132. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. DIVYATHEJ A.B., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. LATHA W/O DHARANENDRA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.59, BENAKA, VIDYASHANKARA LAYOUT, NEXT TO SHAKTHINAGARA NEAR RAJKUMAR ROAD, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SIDDHARTHA NAGAR POST, MYSURU-570011.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.254/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.619/2020 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal is filed against current finding of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶27

The case of plaintiff before the Trial Court is that

¶28

plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also he has been in possession of Site No.424 and the same was carved out of Survey No.79/2 situated at Sathagalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and also contend that the property was allotted originally to the vendor of the plaintiff and the same is purchased by the plaintiff and after purchasing the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

property, khathais transferred in favour of the plaintiff. It is also the contention that one Thimmaiah and others had filed O.S.No.351/2012 against the above said society seeking for declaration, possession and permanent injunction and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff herein therein preferred R.F.A.No.1143/2019 before the High Court and the same is pending. It is also the case that suit schedule property is one of the suit schedule property in O.S. No.351/2012 and contend that when interference was made by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the suit and resisted the attempt made by them to encroach upon the suit schedule property and sought for the relief of permanent detention.

¶33

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that they have filed suit in O.S.No.351/2012 against the society and the same was dismissed and appeal is pending before the High Court. It is contended that the defendants and their ancestors are the original owners of Survey No.79/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated at Sathagalli Village. The Karnataka Government vide its Gazette Notification dated 28.05.1991 made notification

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

under Section 4(1) of Karnataka Acquisition Act for acquisition of 30 guntas of land, carved out of 1 acre, 12 guntas in Survey No.79/2 and the same was handed over to the society for formation of sites and distribution to its members. Thereafter, 22 guntas of land in the said survey number is remaining with the family members of the defendants and the same is described in the written statement schedule and same is not acquired by the State. It is also their case that when they filed suit against the society and the same was resisted and also contend that MUDA has cancelled the sanctioned plan and license issued to the society, having come to know that the said society did not have title over written statement schedule property. It is also contended that thereafter, the Tahsildar has mutated khatha and RTC of the written statement schedule property to the family of the defendants. The plaintiff or the said society do not have any right over the written statement schedule property. It is contended that suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute with regard to the title is concerned.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The Trial Court having considered the averments of plaint and written statement, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, defendants examined defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D82.

¶42

The Trial Court having considered the material available on record i.e., the sale deed as well as the document of Exs.P2 and P3 i.e., tax paid receipts as well as the document of Ex.P4, the site number and extent of the suit schedule property is correctly mentioned as 424. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the order of the High Court in W.P.No.10252/2020 and Ex.P6 is the khatha extract of the schedule property and Ex.P6 clearly depicts the name of the plaintiff and extent of the suit schedule property. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that khatha of the suit schedule property is in the name of the plaintiff and all other documents also stands in the name of the plaintiff. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that a copy of the Commissioner report is filed in O.S.No.351/2012 and also the fact that suit filed against the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

society was dismissed was also taken note of and Commissioner report was also taken note and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff had purchased the schedule property from the society and suit of the plaintiff is one of bare injunction and having considered the document, the fact that 30 guntas of land was acquired in Survey No.79/2 is not in dispute and the only claim by the defendants is with regard to remaining 22 quntas of land and the Trial Court also in paragraph No.15 discussed that it is the contention of the defendants that 22 guntas was actually not acquired for the formation of layout by MUDA and also in favour of the society and it is the duty cast upon the defendants to show with clear and concluding proof that said 22 guntas are not acquired and failed to produce any document that shows that suit schedule property comes within 22 quntas of land retained by them. Hence, having considered the material available on record, granted the relief of permanent injunction and when the suit is filed only for the relief of permanent injunction, the Court has to examine whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing the suit and considering the documents itself, granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.254/2024 and the First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the impugned judgment requires interference of the Court and the same is an erroneous judgment. The First Appellate Court also having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of Ex.P8-Commissioner report filed in O.S.No.351/2012 and according to the report of the Court Commissioner, the layout has been formed by the society and it is also not in dispute that Government acquired the land to the extent of 30 quntas, out of 1 acre, 12 quntas of the claim made by the defendants and also in paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 16 discussed both oral and documentary evidence and even extracted the answer and particularly in paragraph No.17, when the defendants examined defendant No.3 as D.W.1 also taken note that Ex.D21 is the sanction of approved layout plan in respect of Survey Nos.72/1 to 79/2 measuring 52 acres, 37 guntas. Ex.D22 is the letter issued by Vidyashankar House Building Co-operative Society, Mysuru requesting to sanction revised sketch and revised sketch clearly discloses that the

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

same was issued on receipt of payment of fee and particularly taken note of Ex.D34 is the letter issued by Vidyashankar House Building Co-operative Society, Mysuru to Mysore Urban Development Authority requesting for issuing of 20 copies of the sketch and also taken note of in paragraph No.18, the sanction plan issued and also letter Ex.D38 is the letter issued by Vidyashankar House Building Co-operative Society, Mysuru to Mysore Urban Development Authority and also considered the documents which have been placed before the Court which have been relied upon by the Trial Court, in order to come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property which he had purchased and in paragraph No.24 discussed with regard to possession of the plaintiff is concerned that he has produced Ex.P8 which is the Court Commissioner Report, which shows that ADLR was appointed as Court Commissioner in O.S.No.351/2012 and he had visited the spot, prepared the sketch and submitted his report. According to the Court Commissioner, the society formed the layout and site formed in the said layout was sold and plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court even extracted

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the contents of document Ex.D81 in paragraph No.26 and comes to the conclusion that documents which have been relied upon by the defendants proves possession in respect of the suit schedule property and confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent pending, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶58

The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record and mainly relied upon the Commissioner report. The counsel would contend that as against the Commissioner report also, appeal is pending before this Court in R.F.A. and both the Courts have committed an error in recording the finding that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶59

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, both the Courts have taken note of sale deed Ex.P1 and the same evidence the fact that plaintiff had purchased the site

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

from the original allottee and thereafter, paid tax in terms of Exs.P2 and P3 and so also produced the document of khatha extract as Ex.P6, Ex.P7-Tax paid Receipt and Commissioner Report as Ex.P8. Having considered the Commissioner report, both Courts comes to the conclusion that site which is in possession of the plaintiff is allotted by the society in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff and the same is purchased from the vendor vide sale deed at Ex.P1 and after purchasing the same, tax is paid and khatha is also changed in favour of the plaintiff and all documents establish possession of the plaintiff. Even relying upon the Commissioner report filed in O.S.No.351/2012 and suit filed by the appellants is also dismissed and as against the dismissal of suit, R.F.A.No.1143/2019 is pending before this Court and when the suit is filed only for the relief of bare injunction, both the Courts have to take note of the fact that as on the date of filing the suit, whether plaintiff is in possession. Having considered the documents which have been placed on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is in possession of the property and the same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Having considered the documents, particularly tax paid receipt as well as report of the

¶64

11 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:27517 RSA No. 749 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Commissioner Ex.P8 which was filed in O.S.No.351/2012, nothing is placed on record before the court by the appellants/defendants that the said site comes within the area of the land retained by the defendants. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law.

¶68