Dismissed¶52

Sri P Basavanna v. Smt. Jagadhamba

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025RSA/865/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mortgage redemption; usufructory mortgage Ex.P1 under Section 58(d) of the TP Act; right of redemption; right to recover possession; declaration refused; permanent injunction until redemption in accordance with law; concurrent findings; admission-stage dismissal of RSA under Section 100 of CPC; no substantial question of law; time-bar/limitation defence to be urged in redemption suit O.S. No.2501 of 2020; mortgage deed dated 18.11.1974; Nanjangud courts; High Court of Karnataka; NC: 2025:KHC:44910; RSA No. 865 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed at the admission stage; keeping the observations made hereinabove, the appellant retains the right to raise all defences in accordance with law (including the time-bar plea in the redemption suit O.S. No.2501 of 2020). ¶52

Sri P Basavanna Vs Smt. Jagadhamba — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal, filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below and listed for admission, should be admitted and substantial questions of law framed under Section 100 of CPC, particularly with regard to the rejection of the prayer for declaration. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

No ground is made out to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law with regard to the rejection of the prayer for declaration; hence it is not a case for admitting the second appeal and framing substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's plea that redemption is barred by time can be urged before the trial court, since the respondents have already filed suit O.S. No.2501 of 2020; all other grounds available to the appellant can likewise be urged in the suit for redemption filed by the respondents.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh J.) dismissed Regular Second Appeal No. 865 of 2025 at the admission stage against concurrent findings. In O.S. No.85/2012 (II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud), the plaintiff-appellant had sought a declaration that the defendants had lost their right of redemption and their right to recover possession of the schedule property under the mortgage deed dated 18.11.1974 (allegedly treated as Ex.P1, a usufructory mortgage under Section 58(d) of the TP Act), together with permanent injunction; the trial court rejected the declaration but granted permanent injunction unless the property was redeemed under due process of law. The first appellate court (R.A. No.32/2020, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, judgment/decree dated 01.10.2024) confirmed. Holding that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of CPC, and that the appellant's contention that redemption is barred by time, along with all other grounds, could be urged before the trial court in the redemption suit O.S. No.2501 of 2020 already filed by the respondents, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, preserving the appellant's right to raise all defences in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44910 RSA No. 865 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI P BASAVANNA S/O LATE PUTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT ACHAGUNDLA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK-571301

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. JAGADHAMBA W/O. LATE. MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. KRISHNA S/O. LATE MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶16

SRI. LOKESH S/O. LATE. MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT TELUGU SHETTARA BEEDI, KALALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK-571118

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44910 RSA No. 865 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2024 PASSED IN RA NO. 32/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.06.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.85/2012 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

appellant-plaintiff.

¶27

2. This matter is listed for admission and the appeal is filed against the concurrent findings.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the trial court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction specifically pleaded that defendants have lost their right of redemption and also lost their right to recover possession of the suit schedule

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44910 RSA No. 865 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

property and plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also the contention that defendants are interfering with possession and defendants No.1 and 3 appeared and filed the objections, stating that they are entitled to delivery of possession of the suit schedule property since mortgage period is over, and also they are entitled for mesne profits and separate inquiry to be held for determination of the same and additional issue was also framed based on the written statement of defendant No.2, that the alleged mortgage deed dated 18.11.1974, executed by his father in favour of plaintiff is not binding on him and further contention that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court having given opportunity to both parties, considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and answered the issue No.1 as negative that he is not entitled for the relief of declaration as sought. However, the trial court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for possession and if entitled for permanent injunction that

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:44910 RSA No. 865 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

there is an interference by the defendants and also answered issue No.3 partly in affirmative, coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled for permanent injunction unless the property was redeemed under law, i.e., due process of law and answered issue No.4 to 6 as negative. So also additional issue Nos.1 and 3 as negative and additional issue No.2 is answered as affirmative and ultimately granted the relief of permanent injunction and dismissed the suit for declaration. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2020, and Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the judgment and decree of the trial court in dismissal of the suit for declaration is an erroneous observation and whether it requires interference of this Court and Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:44910 RSA No. 865 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

by the concurrent findings, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶40

The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that Ex.P1 is usufructory mortgage under Section 58(d) of the TP Act and respondents are entitled to redeem the mortgage and they are entitled to recover the possession of the schedule property from the appellant and also both the courts were not justified in coming to the conclusion that respondents are entitled for the relief of redemption, even though the same is barred by law and hence this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial questions of law.

¶41

Having heard the appellant counsel and also the reasons assigned by the trial court and particularly considering the factual aspects of the case, plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration that defendants have lost their right to redeem and lost their right to recover

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44910 RSA No. 865 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

possession of the schedule property. Defendants' main contention is that they are entitled for the relief and also entitled for possession of the property and trial court having considered the document of mortgage deed comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration and also passed an order that they are entitled for permanent injunction consequent upon taking into note of the mortgage and also specific order was passed entitling the plaintiff for permanent injunction until and unless they redeem the mortgage in accordance with law. The finding of the trial court is also very clear that until and unless they redeem the mortgage in accordance with law and also while seeking the relief of the redemption of mortgage and the same has to be considered in accordance with law and the very contention of the appellant counsel that the same is barred by time and time is stipulated and the said ground can be urged before the trial court, since already the respondents have filed the suit in O.S.No.2501 of 2020 and all other

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44910 RSA No. 865 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

grounds available to the appellant can also be urged in a

¶48

suit for redemption filed by the respondents and no ground is made out to admit and frame any substantial question of law with regard to the rejection of prayer of declaration. Hence, it is not a case for admitting the second appeal and framing any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

¶49