Sri. Balaji Singh Vs Smt. Rashmi P Beliya — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri. Balaji Singh Vs Smt. Rashmi P Beliya — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; the Trial Court decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent stands, with the observation that the decree shall not be construed as recognising the plaintiff's title or possession over property Nos.17 and 18, Chunchanaghatta Village, covered under the registered sale deed dated 28.07.2012.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit (Trial Court Issue 1). +3 more

Ratio / Principle

From the cross-examination it is noticed that DW.1 admitted there are two different properties — one in Konanakunte and one in Chunchanaghatta Village.

Key takeaways

The defendants, in their written statement and cross-examination, made no claim that the property covered under the sale deed at Exhibit P.1 (plaintiff's father's sale deed) was the property purchased by them.ratio¶66
Since the plaintiff is not making a claim on the property located in Chunchanaghatta Village, the Trial Court's decree is not erroneous, and there is no need to appoint a Court Commissioner to identify the location of the properties.ratio¶17
Clarificatory direction forming part of the disposal: the dismissal of the appeal and the decree in favour of the plaintiff shall not be construed as having recognised the plaintiff's title and possession over property bearing Nos.17 and 18 in Chunchanaghatta Village covered under the registered sale deed dated 28.07.2012.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Permanent injunction — Identity of suit property. Plaintiff (respondent) claimed property No.11, Khata No.138, Konanakunte village, purchased by her father under registered sale deed dated 14.12.1988; defendants (appellants) claimed a property under their own registered sale deed (Exhibit D1) concerning Survey Nos.17 and 18, Chunchanaghatta Village. In cross-examination DW.1 admitted the two properties are different and lie in different villages of Bangalore South Taluk. The defendants never claimed, in the written statement or cross-examination, the property covered under the plaintiff's father's sale deed (Exhibit P.1), and the plaintiff made no claim over the Chunchanaghatta property. The Trial Court decree for permanent injunction was therefore not erroneous; applications for appointment of a Court Commissioner to locate the properties were refused both at trial and on appeal. Held: appeal dismissed, with the clarification that the decree shall not be construed as recognising the plaintiff's title or possession over Nos.17 and 18 covered under the defendants' sale deed dated 28.07.2012.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

SRI BALAJI SINGH SON OF RAM SINGH, NO. 63, POST OFFICE ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, KANAKAPLURA ROAD, JP NAGAR POST, BANGALROE - 560078.

SMT. L KAVITHA, W/O. BALAJI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. 63, POST OFFICE ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, KANAKAPLURA ROAD, JP NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560078. …APPELLANTS

Digitally (BY SRI K P BHUVAN, ADVOCATE) signed by PRAMILA G V AND: Location: HIGH COURT SMT RASHMI P BELIYA, OF D/O LATE. B V PRAHALLAD, KARNATAKA W/O SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K S, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560018. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUNEEL S NARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2017

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

PASSED IN OS NO.7621/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed assailing the decree dated 27.10.2017 in O.S.No.7621/2012 on the file of XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore for injunction. The suit property is described as under:

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.11, Khata No.138, now coming under the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, situated at Konanakunte village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, measuring East to West-30 feet , North to South-40 feet, totally measuring 1200 square feet and bounded on:

West by : Property No.10 East by : Road and Private property North by : Private property South by : Road

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

The plaintiff claims that her father late B.V.Prahallad purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 14.12.1988. The plaintiff claims to be the successor of B.V.Prahallad and it is asserted that since the date of purchase, the plaintiff’s father and after his demise the plaintiff is in possession of the property.

The plaintiff also contends that pursuant to the sale deed, necessary changes in the property records have been changed in the name of the plaintiff's father and after his demise in the name of the plaintiff's mother and after the demise of the plaintiff's mother, plaintiff being the only daughter, succeeded to the property. The injunction is sought on the premise that there is interference by the defendants.

The defendants contested the suit. The defendants disputed the plaintiff's possession as well as title of the property. The defendants took a stand that they are in possession of the property and their property is located in Chunchanaghatta Village, Saraki Grama Panchayat, Bengaluru South.

NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

4 -

HC-KAR

The description of property claimed by the

defendant is found in Exhibit.D1, the registered sale deed. The description of property provided in the said registered sale deed reads as under:

"LlA £ÀA.1) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î ºÉÆÃ§½ ºÁ° §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄºÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄªÀ ZÀÄAZÀWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ SÁvÁ £ÀA.46/2 gÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.17 gÀ ¥ÉÊQ ¥À²éªÀiÁzsÀð ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¹ÜgÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢ü: ¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ : EzÉÃ 17£ÉÃ £ÀA§gÀÄ ¥ÉÊQ ¥ÀÆªÁðzsÀð ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ. ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : gÀ¸ÉÛ, zÀQëtPÉÌ: ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ. F ªÀÄzÉå EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ: 17-0 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ zÀQët: 29-0 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄÄ¼Àî ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ,

LlA £ÀA.2) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î ºÉÆÃ§½, ºÁ° §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄºÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄªÀ ZÀÄAZÀWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ SÁvÁ £ÀA.46/2gÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.18 gÀ ¥ÉÊQ ¥ÀÆªÁðzsÀð ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¹ÜgÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢: ¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ : 17£ÉÃ £ÀA§gÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ. ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : EzÉÃ 18£ÉÃ £ÀA§gÀÄ ¥ÉÊQ ¥À²ÑªÀiÁzsÀð ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ. GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : gÀ¸ÉÛ, zÀQëtPÉÌ: gÀ¸ÉÛ. F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ: 24-0 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ zÀQët: 39-0 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄÄ¼Àî ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ, MlÄÖ JgÀqÀÄ LlA ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À FV£À ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯É gÀÆ.18,28,000/- UÀ½UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

The Trial Court framed following issues.

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

(4) xxx

The sale deed in the name of plaintiff's father is produced. The plaintiff is examined. The defendants have not disputed the execution and registration of the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff. What is disputed is the description and location of the property.

In the cross- examination, DW1 has admitted that

the plaintiff's property is different from the property on which the defendants are claiming right.

It is further admitted that the two properties are

located in two different villages in Bangalore South Taluk.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent and the appellants that the properties are separated by a long distance and they are not adjoining properties. One of the ways to adjudicate the controversy was to appoint a Court Commissioner to ascertain as to where the properties over which parties are claiming right, are located. However, the defendants/appellants who have disputed the identification of the property have not moved an application before the Trial Court to appoint a Court Commissioner to locate, to identify the location of the property.

The suit is decreed holding that the plaintiff's possession of the property is established based on the registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff's father. Hence, the defendants are before this Court.

Appellants have filed application is filed before this Court to appoint a Court Commissioner to measure and locate the suit schedule properties. Respondent has not filed statement of objection in writing. However, the application is opposed on the premise that, this is not the stage to allow such an application and given the fact that the defendants have

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

admitted in the cross-examination that two properties are different and the defendants have no claim over the properties covered under the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff’s father, there is no need to appoint a Court Commissioner.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at

the Bar and produced the records.

As can be seen from the evidence which has been placed before the Court, in the cross-examination, DW.1 has stated as under:

" £À£Àß eÁUÀ ZÀÄAZÀ£ÀWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ, ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:17 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 18 DVzÉ. EzÀgÀ SÁvÁ £ÀA44/6, EzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è 2012gÀ°è ªÀÄºÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀjAzÀ RjÃ¢¹zÉÝÃ£É. ªÁ¢ zÁªÁzÀ°è ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀ D¹Û PÉÆÃt£ÀPÀÄAmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°èzÉ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:11, SÁvÁ £ÀA138 DVzÉ.

£À£ÀUÉ FUÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀ µÉqÀÆå¯ï£À ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢ £À£Àß D¹Û ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:17gÀ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢AiÀiÁVzÉ. CzÀÄ FUÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä DVzÀÄÝ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:17PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÉ. EzÀÄ ¤.¦.33 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¤¦.33gÀ°è ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ SÁ¸ÀV eÁUÀ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁVzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. C°è ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå.18 JAzÀÄ §gÉ¢®è.

¸ÁQëUÉ ¤.¦.24£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ EzÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:10 DVzÀÄÝ PÉÆÃt£ÀPÀÄAmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°èzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ µÉqÀÆå¯ï£À°è ¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:11 EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÁªÁ D¹Û ºÁUÀÆ ¤¦.1gÀ D¹Û MAzÉÃ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj."

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

From the cross-examination it is noticed that DW.1 has admitted that there are two different properties. One in Konanakunte and one is in Chunchanaghatta Village. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent would submit that the plaintiff/respondent has no claim over the property in Chunchanaghatta Village which is covered under the sale deed in the name of defendants.

Learned counsel for the defendants in their written statement and cross-examination have not made a claim that the property covered under the sale deed at Exhibit P.1 is the property purchased by them.

Since the plaintiff is not making a claim on the property located in Chunchanaghatta Village, the Court is of the view that the decree passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to be an erroneous decree and there is no need to appoint a Court Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of this case to identify the location of the properties.

However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this appeal or the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff shall not be construed as having recognised the plaintiff's title and

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6980 RFA No. 127 of 2018

HC-KAR

possession over property bearing Nos.17 and 18 said to be situated in Chunchanaghatta Village, Taluk, Bengaluru which is covered under the registered sale deed dated 28.07.2012.

Under these circumstances, appeal is dismissed

with an observation that this decree in favour of the plaintiff should not be construed as having recognised the plaintiff's possession or claim over the properties covered under the aforementioned sale deed.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30