Sri Ramesh G Vs Sri S Thippeswamy

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2306 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAMESH .G S/O. LATE P. C. GOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 59, MADERAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU-560 090.

¶9

SRI. M. GOPAL S/O. D. M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. E-74, 6^TH CROSS SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE JALAHALLI WEST AND POST BENGALURU-560 015.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. MANJUNATH. R S/O. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. E-73, 6^TH CROSS SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE JALAHALLI WEST AND POST BENGALURU-560 015.

¶12

SRI. CHANDRAPPA. D. M. S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. E-74, 6^TH CROSS SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

JALAHALLI WEST AND POST BENGALURU-560 015.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY .P.N, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. S. THIPPESWAMY S/O. SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 19 (209) 2^ND MAIN, 3^RD CROSS VIDHYANAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR .K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2019 PASSED OS NO.5608/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The captioned appeal is by the defendants directed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.5608/2016, whereby plaintiff's suit seeking injunction simpliciter is decreed and defendants are

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful

¶31

possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

¶32

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

¶33

to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶34

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶35

The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of vacant Site No.23, forming part of Sridevi Layout, situated at Medarahalli Village, Shettihalli, Dasarahalli, Bengaluru.

¶36

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Ramaiah, who was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.10. According to the plaintiff, Ramaiah formed a residential layout in the said survey number and carved out several sites, which were sold to different purchasers under registered sale

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

deeds. Insofar as the suit schedule site is concerned, it is contended that Ramaiah executed a registered general power of attorney dated in favour of Sri. Suvalal Jain. Pursuant to the said conveyance, plaintiff is stated to have secured mutation of his name in the records of Abbigere Grama Panchayat and to have paid property taxes.

¶41

It is further pleaded that Sri. Suvalal Jain, acting through his duly constituted General Power of Attorney holder, executed a registered sale deed dated 22.12.2004 in favour of plaintiff thereby conveying the suit schedule property and delivering possession. Subsequently, in the year 2007, Medarahalli Village came within the jurisdictional limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) pursuant to a Gazette notification. Consequent thereto, BBMP is said to have issued 'B' khata extract in the name of plaintiff and to have collected property taxes from him in respect of the suit property.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Plaintiff contend that the defendant's

¶45

threatened to illegally evict the plaintiff. Plaintiff lodged a police complaint after the said incident. The plaintiff further asserts that he has been regularly paying property taxes and that he is in peaceful enjoyment of the property as its absolute owner. Hence, the present suit is filed.

¶46

According to the plaintiff, the defendants, without any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, attempted to interfere with his possession and threatened to dispossess him forcibly. He contends that though a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police authorities, no effective action was taken. Left with no other efficacious remedy, the plaintiff has approached the Civil Court seeking protection of his possession by way of a decree of permanent injunction.

¶47

Upon service of summons, the defendants

¶48

entered appearance and filed joint written statement, stoutly denying the averments made in the plaint. The

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

defendants specifically contended that one Ramaiah was the absolute owner and in possession of land bearing Sy.No.10 measuring 3 acres 35 guntas. It is their case that Ramaiah had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of G. Ramesh. Owing to certain disputes between Ramaiah and the said GPA holder, and in view of an earlier agreement of sale dated 08.10.1994 executed by Ramaiah agreeing to sell the entire extent of Sy.No.10 for a total consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-, out of which Rs.15,00,000/- was received as advance, the said G. Ramesh instituted a suit in O.S.No.520/2008 against Ramaiah and his sons seeking enforcement of his rights.

¶52

The said suit, according to the defendants, culminated in a compromise and a compromise decree came to be drawn. Basing their claim on the said compromise decree, it is contended that G. Ramesh acquired valid rights over the property and thereafter conveyed the same in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2016. On these assertions, the defendants sought

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

dismissal of the suit, disputing both the plaintiff’s title and possession.

¶57

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues for consideration. In order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and produced sixteen documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16. The defendants, in rebuttal, examined defendant No.3 as DW.1 and produced eighteen documents marked as Exs.D-1 to D-18. Both parties thus placed reliance on oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

¶58

The trial Court, on an elaborate appreciation of the pleadings, oral testimony and documentary evidence, answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. The trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit. The Court further held that the

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

plaintiff had proved the alleged interference at the hands of the defendants. Consequently, the suit for permanent injunction came to be decreed.

¶63

This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the defendants and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff at length. This Court has also taken judicial notice of the comprehensive suit instituted by the defendants in O.S.No.972/2017 in respect of the larger extent of land. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

¶64

(i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and that the defendants interfered with such possession, thereby entitling the plaintiff to a decree of perpetual injunction, suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?

¶65

(ii) What order?

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Finding on Point No.(i):

¶70

On a meticulous examination of the pleadings

¶71

and the material placed on record by both the parties, certain foundational facts emerge as undisputed. It is not in controversy that one Ramaiah was the original owner of land bearing Sy.No.10, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, and also Sy.No.11. It is further not in dispute that the Land Tribunal, by its order passed in the year 1992, conferred occupancy rights in favour of Ramaiah in respect of the said lands. While the plaintiff traces his title directly through the original grantee Ramaiah, the defendants seek to trace their title through

¶72

one G. Ramesh, who claims to have obtained a General Power of Attorney and an agreement of sale from Ramaiah as early as in the year 1994. The defendants contend that since the grant of occupancy rights was accompanied by a

¶73

non-alienation clause, Ramaiah could not have executed

¶74

an outright sale deed at that point of time and, therefore, executed a GPA coupled with an agreement of sale in

¶75

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

favour of G. Ramesh. It is further their case that the said G. Ramesh instituted a suit in O.S.No.520/2008 and, by virtue of a compromise recorded therein, acquired title over the property, which was subsequently conveyed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3.

¶78

In the backdrop of the above admitted factual matrix, it is to be noted that the plaintiff asserts his right on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 22.12.2004 executed by Suvalal Jain- GPA Holder while Original grantee-Ramaiah also signed as a consenting witness. The defendants, on the other hand, do not trace their title through any registered conveyance executed by Ramaiah during his lifetime prior to 1999, but rely upon the alleged GPA and agreement of sale of 1994 executed in favour of G. Ramesh.

¶79

Insofar as possession is concerned, the plaintiff has produced material evidence to substantiate actual and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The tax

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

paid receipts, ‘B’ extract and property extract issued by BBMP demonstrate that subsequent to the registered conveyances, the name of the plaintiff’s predecessor-intitle was entered in the municipal records. Exs.P-4 and P-5, P-9 and P-10 and P-7, being tax paid receipts and building license issued further disclose that a residential structure exists on the suit property. These documents, read cumulatively, probabilise the plaintiff’s assertion of settled possession as on the date of suit.

¶84

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed on record the plaint in O.S.No.972/2017 by filing a memo in the connected appeal. It is evident that the defendants have instituted a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs by impleading not only the present plaintiff but also several other purchasers of sites formed in Sy.No.10. The said suit is pending adjudication. A perusal of the compromise decree in O.S.No.520/2008, marked at Exs.D-8 and D-9, reveals that G. Ramesh had

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

instituted the said suit not for specific performance, but for bare injunction. Ramaiah was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the said proceedings. It is seen that during the pendency of the said suit, a compromise was entered into between G. Ramesh and Ramaiah, wherein Ramaiah is stated to have received the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/out of the total consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and acknowledged the claim of G. Ramesh.

¶89

However, it is significant to note that the compromise was recorded in a suit for injunction simpliciter. Whether such acknowledgment in a compromise decree in a bare injunction suit would operate to convey or crystallise title in favour of G. Ramesh is a matter which necessarily involves adjudication of complex questions of title and the legal effect of the compromise decree.

¶90

In this context, a substantial question arises as to whether Ramaiah, having already executed a registered

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

Power of Attorney in favour of Suvalal Jain who in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff , had subsisting right, title or interest thereafter, and whether any subsequent acknowledgment in a

¶95

compromise decree could divest the rights already conveyed. These are intricate and serious issues touching upon the validity of competing chains of title. Equally, the contention of the defendants that the earlier sale deeds are hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 on account of violation of the non-alienation clause also entails detailed examination of statutory provisions, the terms of the grant, and the nature of transactions.

¶96

Such disputed and complicated questions of title cannot be conclusively adjudicated in a suit for bare injunction, where the primary enquiry is confined to possession and interference as on the date of the suit. The comprehensive title suit in O.S.No.972/2017 provides an appropriate forum for determination of these contentious issues. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff traces title

¶97

14 -

¶98

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

directly through a registered conveyance executed by the original grantee in 1999, followed by subsequent registered transactions in 2006 and ultimately the gift deed of 2018, all of which are anterior in point of time to the sale deed dated 26.09.2016 relied upon by defendant Nos.2 and 3.

¶101

Having regard to the above circumstances, and in view of the cogent and tangible evidence placed by the plaintiff demonstrating possession, including municipal records and material indicating existence of a residential house, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decree of perpetual injunction granted by the learned Trial Judge does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference. The relief granted is confined to protection of possession and does not confer declaration of title.

¶102

It is, however, clarified that the decree for injunction granted in the present suit shall be subject to

¶103

15 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 2306 of 2019

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

the final outcome of the comprehensive title suit pending

¶107

in O.S.No.972/2017. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants, which pertain to cases involving adjudication of title in appropriate proceedings, do not advance the defendants’ case in the present appeal arising out of a suit for injunction simpliciter. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the Negative .

¶108

Finding on Point No.(ii):

¶109