Dismissed¶89

Eranna v. Renukaiah

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2025RSA/991/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 991 of 2021 (INJ); NC: 2025:KHC:34956; High Court of Karnataka; V Srishananda J; decided 04-09-2025; substantial questions of law; bare suit for injunction; declaratory relief; identity of suit property; Sy.No.2/14 and Sy.No.2/16; RTC extracts and mutation entries; palu-patti; Ex.P1 to P5; Ex.P14 and P15; O.S.No.64/2010 Court Commissioner report; Barasidlahalli, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur; second appeal dismissed; Section 100 CPC with Order XLII; Eranna v. Renukaiah and others; manure pit possession claim; respondents 2 to 4 served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the remaining land held by the plaintiff, the remedy for the plaintiff is to file a necessary suit seeking declaratory relief. ¶84

Eranna Vs Renukaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶89

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law 1: Whether the Trial and Appellate Courts erred in not considering the oral and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P5, which the appellant contends demonstrate the existence of the Suit Schedule Property and his possession over it. +1 more

¶72

Ratio / Principle

Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the remaining land held by the plaintiff, the remedy for the plaintiff is to file a necessary suit seeking declaratory relief.

¶84

Key takeaways

The bare suit for injunction was rightly dismissed by both courts below and requires no interference in the second appeal.ratio¶86
This Court noted, while perusing the record, that in the defendant's suit O.S.No.64/2010 a Court Commissioner had been appointed and had located the defendant's property, on the basis of which that suit came to be drawn up - a circumstance bearing on the identity dispute underlying the plaintiff's bare injunction claim.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bare-injunction suit dismissed; declaratory relief indicated as the proper remedy where the identity of the suit land is disputed. Unsuccessful plaintiff Eranna filed this Regular Second Appeal (INJ) under Sec.100 r/w Order XLII CPC 1908 (NC: 2025:KHC:34956) against the concurrent decisions rejecting his claim to 0-06 guntas in Sy.No.2/14, Barasidlahalli village, Tumkur district: O.S.No.46/2010 (decree 21.09.2019, Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli) and R.A.No.39/2019 (04.10.2021, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru). The substantial questions concerned alleged disregard of Ex.P1 to P5 (revenue entries) and Ex.P14 and P15 (first respondent's alleged admissions). Held (V Srishananda J): the first respondent had himself litigated O.S.No.64/2010 over Sy.No.2/16, in which a Court Commissioner located his property; where the identity of the plaintiff's remaining land is disputed, the remedy is a suit seeking declaratory relief, so the bare suit for injunction was rightly dismissed by both courts and needs no interference. Appeal dismissed as meritless; dismissal shall not prevent the appellant from working out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ERANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKANNA BARASIDLAHALLI VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ TUMAKURU DIST - 572 101

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

RENUKAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O CHIKKANNA

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶16

S/O KENCHAPPA

¶17

MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O BOPAIAH

¶18

JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O ERANNA

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BARASIDLAHALLI KANDIKERE HOBLI

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ TUMAKURU DIST - 572 101

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B.R. RABHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S. RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, ADVOCATE R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.39/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO. 46/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard Sri. Vinay Keerthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. B.R. Raghavendra, counsel representing Sri. K.S. Ramaswamy Iyengar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant

¶34

challenging the dismissal of the suit for injunction in O.S.No.46/2010, confirmed in R.A.No.39/2019 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'):

¶35

SCHEDULE

¶36

Land cum Backyard bearing Sy.No.2/14, measuring 0-06 guntas (Out of totally 0-24 guntas) assessed at totally Rs.0/65 N.P. in total, situated at Barasidlahalli Village, Kandikere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and bounded by :

¶37

East : Lands of Doddaiah S/o. Ningappa West : Land of Mallajjaiah & Narasimhaiah North by: Panchayath Road South by: Land of Kariyajji Siddaiah.

¶38

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶39

Plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction in respect of the suit property which is the land bearing Sy.No.2/14 measuring 0-24 guntas which is an ancestral property

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

according to the plaintiff belonging to Sri. Chikkanna S/o. Kenchaiah. He also contends that he was the rightful owner in possession of the property and his father has sold 0-12 guntas of the land to one Mallamma and retained the remaining 0-12 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/14.

¶44

Plaintiff and his brother Nagaraju divided said 0-12 guntas of land before the Panchayatdars on 06.03.1995 and as per the partition, the suit property has fallen to the share of the plaintiff and thereafter the revenue entries were made in his name. Thus, the plaintiff is utilizing the suit property as manure pit. The defendant without there being any right, title and interest over the suit property, tried to interfere with the possession of the suit property which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit in O.S. No.46/2010.

¶45

Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants entered appearance and denied the plaint averments in toto .

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

He has also stated that the property that has been purchased by the defendants is the different property, he is in occupation of the property that has been purchased by him and he has already filed a suit in O.S.NO.64/2010.

¶50

Suit on contest came to be dismissed inter alia ,

¶51

held in paragraph No.15 as under:

¶52

15. It is further the plaintiff produced the plaint, written statement and deposition of defendant in OS 64/2010. It is clear that after filing of the suit the defendant filed suit against the present plaintiff and his brother Nagaraju in OS 64/2010 for his land bearing sy.No.2/16 measuring 1 acre 09½ guntas. In the crossexamination present defendant admitted that towards eastern side of his property there exists land of defendant Eraiah. This fact evident that, eastern side there exits land of Earaiah. It is further the plaintiff relied upon the Commissioner report submitted by the Commissioner in respect to measurement of sy.No.2/14 and 2/16. In the report the Commissioner had specifically mentioned the existence of suit schedule property and it is also mentioned that, the said vacant space comes under sy.No.2/16. The plaintiff claiming the said property by contending that the said property belonged to him. Admittedly, except RTC extract and mutation, no

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

document is produced by the plaintiff to show the boundaries and existence of properties. Admittedly, the plaintiff name entered into RTC extracts on the basis of Ex.P1 and also survey number and extent mentioned like sy.No.2/14 measuring 0-06 guntas. On carefully gone through the records it apparent that, 0-06 guntas in sy. No.2/14 is in the name of plaintiff.

¶56

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.39/2019.

¶57

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and found that there was no merit in the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal.

¶58

Being further aggrieved by the same, the

¶59

plaintiff is before this Court in the second appeal on the following grounds:

¶60

The Appellant submits that both the Trial & Lower Appellate Courts failed to consider the documentary evidence Ex.P1 to P5, which clearly demonstrate the Appellant's possession over the Schedule Property, and

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

the said revenue entries have been running from 1987 till date. Without giving credence to the said documentary evidence, the Trial & Appellate Courts passed the impugned judgements holding that the Suit Schedule Property is not in existence. The impugned judgements are therefore arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be set aside.

¶65

The Appellant submits that the first Respondent had filed a suit in OS 64/2010 and in the said suit, the first Respondent had clearly admitted existence of the Suit Schedule Property adjacent to his land, and the Court Commissioner too was appointed in the said suit, who too confirmed existence of the Suit Schedule Property and the Appellant's possession over the same. The Trial Court without giving credence to the same, only on the basis of oral evidence of the first Respondent, dismissed the suit, holding that the Suit Schedule Property is not in existence. The Lower Appellate Court too without giving credence to the documentary evidence, reiterated the findings of the Trial Court and passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be set aside.

¶66

The Appellant submits that the Trial & Appellate Courts failed to appreciate the revenue entries and clear admission on the part of the first Respondent and that the revenue entries clearly establish existence of the Suit Schedule Property and the Appellant's possession over the same, only on the ground that the Appellant had not

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

produced the palu-patti to show his ownership over the Suit Schedule Property, passed the impugned judgements, which are arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be set aside.

¶70

In the appeal, the following substantial

¶71

questions of law are raised:

¶72

1) Whether the Trial & Appellate Courts erred in not considering the oral & documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P5, which clearly demonstrate the existence of the Suit Schedule Property and the Appellant's possession over the same?

¶73

2) Whether the Trial & Appellate Courts erred in not considering the documents at Ex.P14 & P15 wherein the first Respondent had clearly admitted the existence of the Suit Schedule Property and the Appellant's possession over the same?

¶74

Sri. Vinaya Keerthi M., learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material on record especially when 0-12 guntas of land has been retained by

¶75

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34956 RSA No. 991 of 2021

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

the plaintiff in the partition with his brother and the same has been used by him as manure pit resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

¶78

Per contra, Sri. B.R. Raghavendra representing Sri. K.S. Ramaswamy Iyengar learned counsel for the respondents, support the impugned judgment.

¶79

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶80

On such perusal of material on record, as could be seen from the discussion and reasoning recorded by the Trial Court in paragraph No.15 supra, a suit was filed by the defendant in O.S.No.64/2010 wherein a Court Commissioner has been appointed and the Court Commissioner has located the property belonging to the defendant and based on the same, suit of the defendant in O.S. No.64/2010 came to be drawn by filing the application.

¶81