Dismissed¶76

Mr. Shreyas R Reddy v. Mrs. M K Chaya

Regular First Appeal (Sec.96 CPC) by the defendant-appellants – children of P.N.Rajamurthy

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026RFA/1738/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Anant Ramanath Hegde J., 20-02-2026), RFA No. 1738 of 2018 — injunction suit O.S.No.2285/2016; possession-only decree confirmed; no inquiry into title; uncross-examined plaintiff and evidence-less defendants; remand refused; gift-deed challenge suit O.S.No.1773/2016 dismissed without restoration; Sec.96 CPC appeal dismissed; Hindu Succession Act 1956 S.8 referenced in argument.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the Trial Court's decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent stands confirmed. ¶76

Mr. Shreyas R Reddy Vs Mrs. M K Chaya — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the Trial Court's decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent stands confirmed.

¶76

Issue for consideration

Point (a): Whether the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the judgment and decree by holding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

The suit judgment dealt only with the plaintiff's possession and never went into the question of title.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

This Court held that the Trial Court was justified in concluding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, the documents disclosing her possession in unmistakable terms.

¶66

Key takeaways

Because the suit was only for injunction and the Court did not adjudicate title, the decree for permanent injunction was confirmed.ratio¶70
The plea for remand was rejected because sufficient opportunity was given to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff and to lead their own evidence, and that opportunity was not availed.ratio¶67
Further, since the defendants' declaratory suit against the gift deed had been dismissed with no restoration application and no fresh suit filed, the Court found no reason to remand the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh contest.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal (Sec.96 CPC) by the defendant-appellants — children of P.N.Rajamurthy — against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2018 of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru, in O.S.No.2285/2016 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent M K Chaya's suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff traced possession through a chain beginning with a gift deed dated 13.02.2004 by P.K.Narayana Reddy to his son P.N.Rajamurthy, sales dated 21.10.2004 and 14.02.2005, and her purchase deed dated 18.08.2006. The defendants pleaded that the property was ancestral in the hands of their grandfather and could not have been gifted to one son without the consent of other family members, and sought remand alleging inadequate opportunity. Held: the suit being solely for injunction, neither court adjudicated title; the plaintiff was examined but never cross-examined, the defendants led no evidence, and the records unmistakably disclosed the plaintiff's possession, so the Trial Court's possession finding stood justified; remand was refused since the offered opportunity went unused and the defendants' own declaratory suit against the gift deed (O.S.No.1773/2016) stood dismissed with no restoration application or fresh suit. Appeal dismissed; injunction decree confirmed; the appellants remain free to pursue any available title remedy.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1738 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SHREYAS R REDDY, S/O. MR. P N RAJAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶9

MRS. SNEHA R REDDY, D/O. MR. P N RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI DIWAKAR,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MRS. M K CHAYA, W/O. LR JAYARAMA REDDY, R/AT NO. 363, 4^TH MAIN, 4^TH AVENUE, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BENGLAURU - 560034.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI J M RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.2285/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The defendants are in appeal challenging the decree for injunction dated 09.03.2018 in O.S.No.2285/2016 on the file of LVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

¶26

The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendants based on registered sale deed dated 18.08.2006. The plaintiff traces possession based on the title over the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds dated 14.02.2005 and 21.10.2004 and gift deed dated 13.02.2004.

¶27

The plaintiff contends that originally the property belonged to P.K.Narayana Reddy and he had gifted the property to his son P.N.Rajamurthy and P.N.Rajamurthy in turn has sold the property to P.M.Krishna Reddy. Said P.M. Krishna Reddy sold the property to N.Chandrika, who is none other than daughter of P.K.Narayana Reddy and N.Chandrika sold the property to the plaintiff.

¶28

The defendants disputed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants who are children of P.N.Rajamurthy claim that the

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

property in the hands of their grandfather K.Narayana Reddy is the ancestral property and he had no right to gift the property to one of his sons (father of defendants) without the consent of other family members.

¶32

The plaintiff was examined. The plaintiff has produced all the title deeds referred to above and also the records pertaining to the suit schedule property including the encumbrance certificates. The plaintiff is not cross-examined.

¶33

Sufficient opportunity was given to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff. That was not availed. Then the case was posted for defendants' evidence. The defendants did not lead evidence to substantiate their claim based on the documents placed on record, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶34

Learned counsel for the defendants would urge that the property was the ancestral property of P.K.Narayana Reddy and he could not have executed a gift deed in favour of his son P.N.Rajamurthy without consent of other sharers.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

In addition, it is also urged that the suit has been hurriedly decreed without affording sufficient opportunity to the defendants to contest the matter and the matter be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶39

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would

¶40

urge that, the suit of the plaintiff is rightly decreed and there is no contest to the evidence led by the plaintiff.

¶41

The defendants have not produced any records to show that the property in the hands of P.K.Narayana Reddy was inherited from his ancestor.

¶42

In case, the property was self acquired property of P.K.Narayana Reddy’s father, then again that would be the property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by the children of propositus, and P.K.Narayana Reddy and his siblings would succeed to the same. Then, after the partition among the siblings of P.K.Narayana Reddy, the property in the hands of each sharer will not be a coparcenary property. In such situation, it would be the self-acquired property of the sharer. P.K.Narayana Reddy who is allotted the share in the partition was competent to execute a gift deed in

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

favour of any person, as such, the gift deed in favour of his elder son P.N.Rajamurthy is valid is the submission.

¶46

In addition, it is also urged that despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the plaintiff is not cross examined, and the defendants have not led evidence and apart from that the defendants have also filed a suit for declaration challenging the aforementioned gift deed in the name of P.N.Rajamurthy and said suit in O.S.No.1773/2016 is dismissed for nonprosecution on 09.03.2018 and no application is filed for restoration of the suit.

¶47

The Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶48

the Bar and perused the records.

¶49

The following points arise for consideration:

¶50

(a) Whether the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the judgment and decree by holding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.

¶51

(b) Whether the appellants have made out a case for remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration?

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The Court has perused the issues framed in the aforementioned suit in O.S.No.2285/2016. The issues read as under:

¶56

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit?

¶57

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged interference caused by the defendants?

¶58

3) Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of proper parties?

¶59

4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of payment of court fee?

¶60

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief of permanent injunction sought for?

¶61

6) What order or decree?"

¶62

From the aforementioned issues and also from the

¶63

discussion in the judgment, it is quite evident that the Court has not gone into the question of title and it has only considered the possession of the plaintiff over the property. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is in possession of

¶64

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the property as the documents in unmistakable terms would disclose the plaintiff’s possession.

¶67

As far as the contention that, the matter requires to be remanded is concerned, it is to be noticed that the sufficient opportunity is given to the defendants to cross examine the plaintiff and to lead their own evidence. The opportunity is not availed.

¶68

And in addition to that, it is also noticed that the defendants have filed a suit in case O.S.No.1773/2016 and same is said to have been dismissed on 09.03.2017 and admittedly no application is filed for restoration of the said suit and no fresh suit is filed challenging the aforementioned gift deed in favour of P.N.Rajamurthy.

¶69

This being the position, the Court also does not find any reason to remand the matter to the Trial Court for giving an opportunity to the defendants to contest the matter afresh.

¶70

Since the suit is only for injunction, the Court has not gone into the question of title of the plaintiff over the property, the decree for injunction is confirmed.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

In case, the appellants claim that they have title

¶75

over the property or any portion of it, and if any remedy is available in law, it is for the appellants to avail such remedy.

¶76

22. Accordingly, the appeal dismissed.

¶77

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶78

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 09.03.2018 in O.S.No.2285/2016 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction.¶25
LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-59), Bengaluru City · 09.03.2018
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendants based on a registered sale deed dated 18.08.2006.¶26
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff traced possession/title over the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds dated 14.02.2005 and 21.10.2004 and a gift deed dated 13.02.2004.¶26
Prior proceeding
Chain of title per pleadings: P.K.Narayana Reddy gifted the property to his son P.N.Rajamurthy, who sold to P.M.Krishna Reddy, who sold to N.Chandrika (daughter of P.K.Narayana Reddy), who sold to the plaintiff.¶27
Prior proceeding
Defendants (children of P.N.Rajamurthy) contested the claim, pleading that the property in the hands of their grandfather was ancestral and could not be gifted to one son without the consent of other family members.¶31
Prior proceeding
At trial the plaintiff was examined and stood uncross-examined.¶32
Prior proceeding
Sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff was offered but not availed; the case was posted for defendants' evidence, which the defendants also failed to lead.¶33
Prior proceeding
On the defendants' failure to lead evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.¶33
Prior proceeding
Defendants had separately filed O.S.No.1773/2016 challenging the gift deed in the name of P.N.Rajamurthy; it was dismissed and, as recorded by this Court, no application for restoration and no fresh suit followed. (The judgment states the dismissal date inconsistently as 09.03.2017 here, and as 09.03.2018 'for nonprosecution' at para 12.)¶18
Prior proceeding
Issues framed in O.S.No.2285/2016 centred on lawful possession and enjoyment, alleged interference by defendants, joinder of parties, valuation/court fee and entitlement to permanent injunction.¶56

Mr. Shreyas R Reddy v. Mrs. M K Chaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shreyas R Reddy v. Mrs. M K Chaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Ramadas Vs R Devraj

Sri Krishnegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Imtiza Pasha Vs Sri Naushad Pasha

Sri Krishne Gowda Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Sri N Ramachandra Reddy Vs the Director

Sri K M Arunkumar Vs Sri Srinivasa Reddy