Allowed

Smt N R Renumala v. Sri M Dharmashekar

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026RFA/25/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sued for permanent injunction over 800 sq ft of site No.104 purchased from defendant No.3; trial court dismissed the suit holding the sale deed fictitious. On appeal, the High Court found title validly derived from defendant No.3 and defendants 1 and 2 had no interest, decreeing permanent injunction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; trial court judgment and decree dated 24.09.2021 set aside; suit decreed with permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession; no order as to c

Smt N R Renumala Vs Sri M Dharmashekar — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. N R RENUMALA

¶10

W/O. N.K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.23/2, ‘MATHRUKRUPA’ 80 FEET ROAD, 11^TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. P M NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. M DHARMASHEKAR S/O M MURUGESH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶16

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O M DHARMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.377 15^TH CROSS, 17^TH C MAIN ROAD HSR 4^TH SECTOR BENGALURU – 560 034.

¶20

SRI. M MANJUNATH S/O M MURUGESH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.130, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD OPP: PES UNIVERSITY 100 FEET RING ROAD BSK III STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. DR. LAVANYA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8443/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the

¶29

appellant/plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2021 passed in O.S No.8443/2016 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru¹ , whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction is dismissed.

¶30

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶31

Brief facts of the case:

¶32

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner and possession over the suit property having acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 30.04.2002 executed by defendant No.3 and his family members. The defendant No.3 had acquired the said property under compromise decree in a partition suit in O.S. No.2502/1992. It is stated that, the suit schedule

¶33

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

property originally belonged to one Sri.Murugesh who had two wives, namely, Smt.Salamma and Smt.Papamma. After the demise of Smt.Salamma, her children have filed suit in O.S. No.2502/1992 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru seeking partition and separate possession and the said suit was ended in compromise. In the said compromise entered into along with other brothers and sisters, the defendant No.1 has got 10 guntas of land, defendant No.3 has got 10 ¼ guntas of land. Both defendants No.1 and 3 have formed layout and sites were formed and the sites were divided between the defendants No.1 and 3, who are brothers. According to the plaintiff, the Site No.104 was allotted to the share of defendant No.3 and Site No.103 was allotted to the share of the defendant No.1. The Site No.104 originally is having dimension of 1,200 square feet.

¶37

Further, it is the case of plaintiff that, the

¶38

plaintiff had purchased a part of the said Site 104 measuring 800 square feet out of 1,200 square feet

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

through registered sale dated 30.04.2002 and since then, she is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule measuring 800 square feet. The remaining portion of of the suit schedule property was retained as a passage. It is further stated that, defendant No.1 being the owner of Site No.103 having acquired the same through compromise decree in O.S No.2502/1992 was adjacent to the Site No.104 and started interference with the possession of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.

¶42

The defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement and contented that the father of defendants No.1 and 2 had two wives and children and that a partition suit in O.S No.2502/1992 was filed, all are accepted and also defendant No.1 has obtained 10 guntas of land and defendant No.3 has been allotted 10 ¼ guntas of land and both of them have formed layout and sites were formed. Upon formation of the layout, sites were

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

formed. The site Nos.B-101 to 103, B-105, B-109 and B- 110 have been allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Likewise, site Nos.B-111 to B-115, B-104, B-106 and B- 116 were the allotted to the share of defendant No.3 and

¶47

they have taken a plea that two sites have been given to their sisters.

¶48

Further, defendants No.1 and 2 contended that the defendant No.3 has sold site No.104 to several persons by executing three to four sale deeds. Therefore, the plaintiff’s sale deed is a fictitious one and the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. Thus, the plaintiff does not have any right and title and also was not in possession. Therefore, defendants No.1 and 2 prays to dismiss the suit.

¶49

The defendant No.3 has filed his separate written statement contending that in the compromise decree as already stated, the Site No. 104 was fallen to the share of the defendant No.3 and he has executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 30.04.2002 and has

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

sold 800 square feet of suit schedule property out of 1200

¶53

square feet. Therefore, he contended that the plaintiff after purchase of the property has obtained khata and mutated her name in the revenue records, hence, he prays for dismissal of the suit.

¶54

Based on the pleadings of the plaintiff and

¶55

defendants, the trial court has framed the following issues:

¶56

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

¶57

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the alleged interference by the defendants?

¶58

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

¶59

4. What order or decree?”

¶60

The plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 and

¶61

produced documents and got marked them as Exs.P1 to P21. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 got

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

examined as DW.1 and produced documents and got marked them as Exs.D1 to D16.

¶65

The trial Court dismissed the suit on the reason

¶66

that the plaintiff failed to prove that she is in possession over the suit schedule property. Further, assigned the reason that, the defendant No.3 has sold the said site No.104 to several persons by executing several sale deeds and therefore the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the plaintiff is fictitious one. Further, the plaintiff is not able to say what is the survey number, boundaries and what is the extent of the property, therefore the trial Court opined that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. It is further observed in the cross-examination that, the plaintiff has stated that she does not know the particular site number, but has stated that she has verified the documents before purchasing the site. Therefore for the reason that the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of plaintiff is a fictitious, hence, upon all these reasons dismissed the suit.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

11. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the

¶71

plaintiff has preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds and the learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.3 on 30.04.2002 and since then she is in possession of the property. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have not disputed that the site No.104 was allotted to defendant No.3. Likewise, defendant No. 3 has also admitted in his written statement that site No.104 was allotted to his share. When this being the fact, the defendant No.3 has sold the suit schedule property measuring 800 square feet out of 1200 square feet by executing sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, when this being the fact, possession follows title. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit, but, on erroneous finding has denied the relief to the plaintiff.

¶72

It is further submitted that defendants No.1 and

¶73

2 have no right, title or interest but only on the basis of

¶74

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

the gift deed made by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2, who is his wife, is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the property. Therefore, it is submitted that when the defendant No.1 is not the owner of the suit schedule property, hence, whatever the gift made by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 is not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, it is not correctly appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, submitted that the findings given by trial Court are perverse in nature and illegal. Therefore prays to allow the appeal by decreeing the suit.

¶77

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession over the site No.104. The defendant No.3 has sold Site No.104, which is only 1200 square feet to several persons by executing three to four sale deeds. Therefore, the property as claimed by the plaintiff is not in existence and it is an unidentifiable one. Therefore, in this regard, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record and hence, there

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and prays to dismiss the suit.

¶82

It is further submitted that while considering Exs.D7 to D13, Exs.15 to D16 and Ex.D14 which are sale deeds and gift deed respectively, the boundaries are not tallied. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff is found to be illusory one, having no existence on the property. Therefore, whatever the sale deed stated to have executed by defendant No.3 in favour of plaintiff is fictitious one and is in respect of non-identifiable property as the property is not in existence. Accordingly, justified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶83

Learned counsel for defendant No.3 who is the

¶84

vendor of the plaintiff submitted that in the compromise decree in O.S No.2502/1992 site No.104 was allotted to the share of defendant No.3 having dimension of 1200 square feet and he has sold a portion of property in favour of the plaintiff and therefore argued in consonance with

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

the averments taken in their written statement and has no objection to allow the appeal.

¶89

16. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel

¶90

for both the parties, the following points arise for my consideration:

¶91

(i) Whether, under the fact and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff proves that she in possession of the property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 30.04.2002 executed by defendant No.3?

¶92

(ii) Whether, under the fact and circumstances of the case, defendants No.1 and 2 prove the fact that the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of plaintiff is illusory and fictitious one over the non-existence property?

¶93

(iii) Whether, under the fact and circumstances of the case, defendants No.1 and 2 prove that their right is culminated by virtue of the gift deed as per Ex.D14?

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

(iv) Whether, under the fact and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff proves that there is alleged interference by the defendants No.1 and 2 over the possession of plaintiff’s property?

¶98

(v) Whether, under the fact and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff proves the balance of convenience so as to grant an order of injunction and if not granted, put into irreparable loss and injury?

¶99

(vi) Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court?

¶100

It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the

¶101

absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property having acquired the same through registered sale deed 30.04.2002 executed by defendant No.3.

¶102

It is not disputed from the averments of the plaint and written statement of defendants No.1, 2 and 3 that originally the land bearing Sy.no.134 belonged to one

¶103

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

Murugesh, who had two wives, Salamma and Papamma. After demise of Salamma her children have filed suit in O.S No.2502/1992 for partition. In the said partition, property to the extent of 00-10 guntas of land was fallen the share of defendant No.1 and 10 ¼ guntas of land was given to the share of the defendant No.3.

¶106

Defendants No.1 and 3 are brothers. All these

¶107

facts are not disputed by defendants No.1 and 3 in their written statement. After defendants No.1 and 3 receiving their relevant shares have formed layout and sites were formed. Certain sites have been given to the share of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their statement had admitted and contended that defendant No.1 was allotted site Nos.B-101, B-102, B-103, B-105, B-109 and B-110. Likewise, the defendant No.3 was allotted the Site No.B-111, B-112, B-113, B-114, B- 115, B-106 and B-116. These averments are not disputed either by the defendants No.1 and 3. All these facts are admitted in their respective statements. Exs.P1 and P2 are

¶108

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

the copies of the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC in O.S No.2502/1992 and order sheet in O.S No.2502/1992. Ex.D1 is compromise petition in O.S No.2502/1992 filed along with the sketch and Ex.D2 is the order sheet in O.S No.2502/1992. Therefore, Exs.P1 and P2 and Exs.D1 and D2 filed by plaintiff and defendant No.1 are one and the same. Therefore, the above facts discussed are not in dispute.

¶111

The plaintiff is claiming her right over the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed Ex.P3 dated 30.04.2002. Exhibits P4 to P16 are the katha certificates and tax paid receipts of the suit property, Therefore, the plaintiff has shown the title over the property having acquired the same by virtue of registered sale deed executed by defendant No.3. The defendant No. 3 also in his written statement has admitted that he has sold a portion of site No.104 in favour of plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 30.04.2002. The plaintiff also produced the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.9568/2004.

¶112

16 -

¶113

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

This suit is filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 against defendant No.3 for permanent injunction.

¶116

In the said suit filed by defendants No.1 and 2 has putforth their claim over site No.104 making allegation against defendant No.3 that he was causing interference. This contention of defendant No.1 was declined by the Civil Court and held that the defendant No.1 was plaintiff in the said suit and failed to make claim over the site No.104. Therefore, there is judicial pronouncement in the said O.S No.9568/2004 that the defendant No.1 herein was plaintiff in O.S No.9568/2004 has failed to prove the claim over site No.104. Therefore, it is proved that defendants No.1 and 2 have no right, title and interest over site No.104. Whereas, it is proved that defendant No.3 has acquired the said site No.104 through compromise decree and subsequently, the layout was formed and the plaintiff has purchased 800 square feet out of 1200 square feet in site No.104. Therefore, the title is correctly derived from the defendant No.3 to the plaintiff.

¶117

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

But the defendants No.1 and 2 have failed to prove in what way they are having claim or interest over the Site No. 104.

¶120

The defendants No.1 and 2 are making claim over the suit property by gift deed. The gift deed- Ex.D14 is executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is none other than husband of defendant No.2. While making the gift deed, the defendant No.1 inserted the site No.104, this does not confer any title over defendant No.2. Therefore, the said gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff.

¶121

The trial Court has extensively discussed and assigned the reasons that the defendant No.3 has executed sale deeds to three to four persons in respect of the very same site number by making bits of the land and the boundaries are not tallied. Just because the defendant No.3 might have executed sale deeds in favour of three to four persons, that does not take away the right of plaintiff

¶122

18 -

¶123

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

over the suit schedule property. Even if defendant No.3 has executed sale deeds in favour of three to four persons exceeding the extent of 1200 sq. ft., then it may be interse dispute between the plaintiff and other purchasers of the bits of site No.104 and this is nothing to do with the plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.1 and 2. But the trial Court, without considering the crux involved in this matter, has observed that the defendant No.3 has executed sale deeds in favour of several persons and suit property is not identifiable and fictitious one. This finding of the trial Court is found to be erroneous.

¶126

24. Therefore, upon considering the evidence on

¶127

record and upon making re-appreciation of the same, it is proved that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property having acquired the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30.04.2002 and defendants No.1 and 2 do not have any right, title or interest in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff proves the case for grant decree of permanent injunction.

¶128

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

The defendants No.1 and 2 are the owners of adjacent site No.103. The evidence on record clearly proves the fact that the defendants No.1 and 2 do not have any right, title or interest over the site No.104. During the course of argument, learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 submitted that defendants No.1 and 2 have not caused any interference over the site No.104. When this being the fact, the plaintiff is entitled for protection of her site as per suit property. Therefore, the findings given by the trial Court are found to be perverse and unjustifiable one. Accordingly, I answer the point Nos.(i), (iv), (v) and (vi) in the Affirmative and point Nos.(ii) and (iii) in the Negative . T herefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶131

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶132

20 -

¶133

NC: 2026:KHC:29313 RFA No. 25 of 2022

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

ORDER

¶136

i) The Regular First Appeal is allowed .

¶137

ii) The judgment and decree dated 24.09.2021 passed in O.S No.8443/2016 by the XIV Additional

¶138

City Civil Judge, Bengaluru , is hereby set aside. iii) The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed and accordingly permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants/respondents or any other persons claiming through / acting under them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of suit schedule property.

¶139

iv) No order as to costs.

¶140

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶141

¶142

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt N R Renumala v. Sri M Dharmashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt N R Renumala v. Sri M Dharmashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chikkananjamma Vs Sri Nanjaiah

Sri. H. B. Gopal Vs Smt. Swarnalatha. P

M/S Patel Industrial Corporation Vs Sri C Purushotham

Mrs Sangeetha Agrawal Vs M/S Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Association

Bengaluru Development Authority Vs B R Chandrashekar

Smt M Rathnamma Vs M Suresha