Shri N Vasudeva Bhat Vs Shri H M Suresh

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.1639/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-16, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶28

IN RFA NO. 415/2012

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SMT. M. VARALAKSHMI

¶31

WIFE OF LATE P. RAVEENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O NO.1654, 16TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, II PHASE, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A HOLDER SRI B. PUTTAPPA, SON OF SHRI.BHADRANNA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS

¶35

...APPELLANT

¶36

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

SRI. H.M. SURESH SINCE DEAD BY LR'S (DIED ON 19.06.2017)

¶39

1(A). SMT. SHAILAJA

¶40

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O LATE H.M. SURESH

¶41

1(B). SRI. CHIRANTH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE H.M. SURESH

¶42

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SREERAMA NILAYA HULIMAVU VILLAGE AND POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

(VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 R1(A AND B) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶45

THIS RFA IS FILED U/O-41, RULE-1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1224/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-16, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

IN RFA NO. 416/2012

¶50

BETWEEN:

¶51

SMT. R. PARANJYOTHI W/O SHRI A.RAJASEKHARA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO.71, FIRST CROSS, VENKATESWARA LAYOUT, S.G., BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶52

...APPELLANT

¶53

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

SRI. H.M. SURESH S/O SR.I MUTHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶56

1(A). SMT. SHAILAJA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O LATE H.M. SURESH

¶57

1(B). SRI. CHIRANTH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE H.M. SURESH

¶58

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SREERAMA NILAYA HULIMAVU VILLAGE AND POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶59

...RESPONDENTS

¶60

(VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 R1(A AND B) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶62

5 -

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

THIS RFA FILED U/O-41, RULE-1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1227/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIIADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-16, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶65

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶66

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶67

All these three appeals are taken together since common issues are involved and all three plaintiffs are tracing title through Munikaverappa.

¶68

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

¶69

to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶70

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶71

All the plaintiffs have instituted independent suits asserting title and possession over different sites formed in Sy.No.81/3, claiming to have derived title through a common source, namely Munikaverappa, who is stated to have executed a registered General Power of Attorney in

¶72

6 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

favour of T. Srinivasa Reddy for formation of layout and

¶76

alienation of sites.

¶77

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1224/2009 (appellant in RFA.No.415/2012) instituted a suit for bare injunction in respect of Site No.27 seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession. The plaintiff asserted that her husband had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1994 from one Ashwatamma. It is further pleaded that Ashwatamma had earlier purchased the very same property under a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1988 from the GPA holder of Munikaverappa. The plaintiff also

¶78

placed reliance on the decree obtained against the defendant’s vendor in O.S.No.3864/2004 to substantiate her claim. It is contended that after purchase, the plaintiff’s husband constructed a residential house and that Munikaverappa had secured conversion of the agricultural

¶79

land, formed a layout and, through a registered GPA in favour of T. Srinivasa Reddy, alienated various sites.

¶80

7 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

Alleging that the defendant, on the strength of a sale deed executed by H.M. Venkataswamy, attempted to dispossess her, the suit in O.S.No.1224/2009 came to be filed.

¶84

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1227/2009 (appellant in RFA.No.416/2012), on similar pleadings, sought the relief of injunction in respect of Site No.3. The plaintiff contended that Munikaverappa, after obtaining conversion of land and forming a layout, sold sites through his GPA holder T. Srinivasa Reddy. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff purchased Site No.7 under a registered sale deed dated 21.01.1989 and subsequently constructed an industrial shed thereon. Alleging interference at the instance of the defendant, the suit was instituted seeking protection of possession.

¶85

Likewise, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1639/2009 (appellants in RFA.No.414/2012) instituted a suit for injunction in respect of Site No.23 formed in Sy.No.81/3. The plaintiffs traced their title by pleading that

¶86

8 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

Munikaverappa, through his GPA holder, sold Site No.23 to Smt. Asha Mathen under a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1989, who in turn conveyed the property to the first plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2004. The plaintiffs asserted that pursuant to the sale, they are in exclusive possession, have paid property tax to the concerned Gram Panchayat and have constructed a shed on the suit schedule property. They also placed reliance on the decrees passed in O.S.No.3856/2004 and O.S.No.3857/2004.

¶90

In all three suits, parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The defendant, in support of his defence, relied upon a registered sale deed dated 28.01.2004 said to have been executed in his favour through H.M. Venkataswamy. The Trial Court, by separate but similar judgments, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain suits for injunction simplicitor in the facts and circumstances of the case and consequently dismissed all the three suits. Aggrieved by the dismissal,

¶91

9 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

the plaintiffs have preferred RFA.No.414/2012 challenging

¶95

the judgment in O.S.No.1639/2009, RFA.No.415/2012 assailing the judgment in O.S.No.1224/2009 and RFA.No.416/2012 questioning the dismissal of O.S.No.1227/2009.

¶96

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all three appeals. Though the legal representatives of the sole defendant have been brought on record, they have chosen not to contest the appeals. In the light of the rival pleadings and material placed on record, the following points arise for consideration in these appeals:

¶97

(i) Whether the Trial Court, contrary to the judgment rendered in O.S.No.3771/2004, erred

¶98

in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1639/2009 and whether such dismissal suffers from perversity or is inconsistent with the earlier judgment?

¶99

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

(ii) Whether the Trial Court, contrary to the judgment rendered in O.S.No.3864/2004, erred in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1224/2009 and whether the impugned judgment and decree are perverse or contrary to the findings recorded therein?

¶102

(iii) Whether the Trial Court, contrary to the judgment rendered in O.S.No.3865/2004, erred in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1227/2009 and whether the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit is unsustainable in law?

¶103

(iv) What order?

¶104

Since common issues are involved, all the points are taken together.

¶105

Finding on points No. (i) to (iii):-

¶106

In all the three appeals, the plaintiffs trace their title to a common source, namely Munikaverappa. It is

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

their consistent case that Munikaverappa, after securing conversion of Sy.No.81/3 and forming a layout, executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of T. Srinivasa Reddy, who, as GPA holder, effected sale of various sites. Each of the plaintiffs asserts that their respective sites were purchased through the said GPA holder under registered sale deeds.

¶111

To substantiate their plea of lawful possession, all the three plaintiffs have produced and marked their respective registered sale deeds in the course of trial. They have also placed reliance on consequential documents such as tax paid receipts and materials evidencing construction over the sites, in order to demonstrate settled and lawful possession as on the date of the suit.

¶112

The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suits for injunction simplicitor,

¶113

12 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

notwithstanding the earlier judgments rendered against defendant–Venkataswamy in O.S.No.3771/2004, O.S.No.3864/2004 and O.S.No.3865/2004. The appellants contend that the dismissal of the present suits runs contrary to the findings recorded in the said earlier suits and, therefore, suffers from perversity and inconsistency.

¶117

In that view of the matter, and in order to examine the tenability of the appellants’ contention, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the operative portion of the decrees passed in the aforesaid three suits, which read as follows in all the three cases:

¶118

"In O.S.No.3865/2004

¶119

1. �ಾ�ಯ�ಾ�ೆಯನು� ಖಚು�ಸ�ತ�� ಾಡ�ಾ��ೆ .

¶120

2. ಪ��ಾ��ಾಗ� ಅಥ�ಾ ಆತನ ಏ ೆಂಟ#ಾಗ� ಅಥ�ಾ ಆತನ ಪರ�ಾ� %ೇ#ೆ �ಾ#ೇ ಆಗ� �ಾ�ಯ 'ಾಂ�ಯುತ (ಾ)*ೕನ ಮತು, ಅನುಭವ/ೆ0 ಹಸ,2ೇಪ�ಾಡದಂ4ೆ 'ಾಶ)ತ6ಬ�ಂಧ/ಾ9ೆ 6ೕಡ�ಾ��ೆ .

¶121

In O.S.No.3864/2004

¶122

�ಾ�ಯ�ಾ�ೆಯನು� ಖಚು�ಸ�ತ�� ಾಡ�ಾ��ೆ .

¶123

13 -

¶124

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

2. ಪ��ಾ��ಾಗ�ೕ ಅಥ�ಾ ಆತನ ಏ ೆಂಟ#ಾಗ�ೕ ಅಥ�ಾ ಆತನ ಪರ�ಾ��ಾ#ೇಆಗ�ೕ �ಾ�ಯರ'ಾಂ�ಯುತ(ಾ)*ೕನಮತು, ಅನುಭವ/ೆ0 ಹಸ,2ೇಪ�ಾಡದಂ4ೆ 'ಾಶ)ತ6ಬ�ಂಧ/ಾ9ೆ 6ೕಡ�ಾ��ೆ .

¶127

In O.S.No.3771/2004

¶128

1. �ಾ�ಯ�ಾ�ೆಯನು� ಖಚು�ಸ�ತ�� ಾಡ�ಾ��ೆ .

¶129

2. ಪ��ಾ��ಾಗ� ಅಥ�ಾ ಆತನ ಏ ೆಂಟ#ಾಗ� ಅಥ�ಾ ಆತನ ಪರ�ಾ� %ೇ#ೆ �ಾ#ೇ ಆಗ� �ಾ�ಯ 'ಾಂ�ಯುತ (ಾ)*ೕನ ಮತು, ಅನುಭವ/ೆ0 ಹಸ,2ೇಪ�ಾಡದಂ4ೆ 'ಾಶ)ತ6ಬ�ಂಧ/ಾ9ೆ 6ೕಡ�ಾ��ೆ ."

¶130

This Court also deems it fit to extract the recitals

¶131

in the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff pertaining to Site No.27. The relevant recital in the said sale deed, which is marked and exhibited as Ex.P.1 is extracted, which reads as under:

¶132

"ಅ�ಾ� , ಈ /ೆಳ@ೆ µÉqÀÆå°ನ�A BವCDರುವ ಸ)ತು, ಇ�ೇ %ೆಂಗಳFರು ದGಣ 4ಾ®ÆèPÀÄ, %ೇUÀÆರು IೋಬK , ಹುK�ಾವL @ಾ�ಮದ�Aರುವ ªÁಸದ ಉzÉÝÃಶ/ಾ0� %ೆಂಗಳFರು ದGಣ 4ಾ®ÆèPÀÄ, ತಹOೕ¯ÁÝರರವCಂದ �Pಾಂಕ 10-6-1965 ರಂದು ನಂಬರು J.J¯ï.J£ï.J¸ï.Dgï. 1149:64-65 £ÉÃ £ÀA§gÀÄ JAqÁgï ì ÀªÉÄAmï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀjªÀwð¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÉÊlÄ£ÀA§gÀÄ 27 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÀgÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£É ¸À»vÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-12-1998 gÀAzÀÄ EzÉÃ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ದGಣ4ಾ®ÆèPÀÄ, ¸À¨ï jf¸ÁÖçgÀ PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è §ÄPï"

¶133

14 -

¶134

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

On meticulous scrutiny of the recitals contained in the registered sale deeds produced by the respective plaintiffs, it is not in dispute that the conveyances were executed by Munikaverappa through his registered GPA holder, T. Srinivasa Reddy. A significant and consistent recital found in all these sale deeds is that land bearing Sy.No.81/3, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, had been subjected to conversion for non-agricultural residential purposes as early as in the year 1965. The reference to the conversion order is expressly incorporated in each of the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs.

¶137

The uniformity of this recital assumes importance, as it demonstrates that the formation of layout and subsequent alienations were not clandestine or unauthorized transactions, but were premised on an order of conversion that predates the transactions in favour of

¶138

the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claim is not merely founded on isolated sale

¶139

15 -

¶140

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

deeds, but on a chain of title emanating from a converted land, reflected in registered instruments.

¶143

It is equally significant that the defendant’s vendor, namely Venkataswamy, had earlier suffered decrees for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.3771/2004, O.S.No.3864/2004 and O.S.No.3865/2004. The operative portions of the judgments in those suits, extracted supra, clearly disclose that injunctions were granted restraining Venkataswamy from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs therein. Those decrees have admittedly attained finality, as Venkataswamy did not challenge the judgments and allowed them to become conclusive.

¶144

In the light of these undisputed decrees operating against the defendant’s vendor, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge has committed a manifest error in dismissing the present suits on the ground that the plaintiffs could not maintain suits for injunction simplicitor. When the vendor of the present

¶145

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

defendant had already been injuncted in respect of similarly situated sites carved out of the very same survey number, and when such decrees have reached finality, it was not open to the Trial Court to ignore the binding effect and evidentiary value of those earlier findings. The dismissal of the present suits, in the face of such decrees, therefore suffers from serious infirmity.

¶148

The present defendant traces his title through the said Venkataswamy. It is not in dispute that Venkataswamy had contested the earlier injunction suits and set up his claim of right and title over the properties in question. In all the three earlier suits, the Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, categorically recorded findings that Venkataswamy failed to establish any semblance of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties therein. On such findings, decrees of permanent injunction came to be granted against him.

¶149

17 -

¶150

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

Thus, the foundation of Venkataswamy’s claim having been judicially negatived in prior proceedings, the present defendant, who claims under him, cannot be placed in a better position than his predecessor-in-title. The principle that a transferee stands in the shoes of his vendor squarely applies. When the vendor’s claim has already been rejected and he has suffered decrees of injunction, the derivative claim of the present defendant cannot be elevated so as to non-suit the plaintiffs in the present proceedings.

¶153

In this context, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph No.14 of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.3864/2004, wherein the Trial Court has elaborately dealt with and negatived the claim of Venkataswamy, which reads as under:

¶154

"14. �ಾ�ೆ ಸ)�,ನ�Aತಮ@ೆ ಹಕು0 ಇ�ೆ ಅಂತ4ೋCಸಲು ಪ��ಾ�ಎಳTಷೂV ಪL#ಾ�ೆ Iಾಜರುಪ�DಲA . �ೕ�ರು�ಾಗ , �ಾ�ೆ ಸ)�,ನ (ಾ)*ೕನ ಮತು, ಅನುಭವ/ೆ0 ಪ��ಾ�ಯರು ಹಸ,2ೇಪ �ಾಡಲು ಬರುವL�ಲA . ಒYೆಯPಾ� (ಾ)*ೕನದ�AರುವLದCಂದ�ಾ�ಯ(ಾ)*ೕನ/ೆ0 ರZ[ೆ /ೊಡ%ೇ/ಾಗುತ,�ೆ . �ಾ�ೆ

¶155

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶156

HC-KAR

¶157

ಸ)�,ನ (ಾ)*ೕನವನು� ತ]ಸದಂ4ೆ Pೋ�/ೊಳT%ೇ/ಾದ#ೆ ಪ��ಾ�ಯರ Bರುದ^ 'ಾಶ_ತ 6ಬ�ಂಧ/ಾ9ೆ 6ೕಡ%ೇ/ಾಗುತ,�ೆ . �ಾ�ಯ ಹ�0@ೆ ಚು`� ಬಂ�ದaCಂದ �ಾ�ಯು /ೇK/ೊಂಡ %ೇ�/ೆಯನು� ಈYೇCಸ%ೇ/ಾಗುತ,�ೆ . ಈ ಎ�ಾA /ಾರಣಗKಂ�ಾ� B�ಾ�ಾಂಶ ನ o.1 ಮತು, 2 ನು� ಸ/ಾ#ಾತbಕ�ಾ� ಉತ,Cಸ�ಾ��ೆ ."

¶158

A careful reading of paragraph No.14 of the judgment extracted supra unmistakably discloses that the Trial Court, in the earlier round of litigation, recorded a categorical finding that defendant–Venkataswamy and the other contesting defendants were not in possession of the entire extent of Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas. On the contrary, the Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the respective plaintiffs in those suits had established their lawful possession over the individual sites carved out of the said survey number. The decrees of perpetual injunction were thus granted on a clear finding that Venkataswamy failed to substantiate either title or possession over the larger extent claimed by him. Those findings have attained finality.

¶159

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶160

19 -

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

Similarly in O.S No.3771/2004, the Trial Court

¶163

has held that the plaintiff has been put in possession consequent to the sale deed. This finding has also attained finality and the same is extracted which reads as under:

¶164

"12. �Pಾಂಕ 31/05/1989 ರಂದು ಮು6/ಾ�ೇರಪ] ಈತನ ಪರ�ಾ� c . O�ೕ.6�ಾಸ #ೆ�d Pೊಂ�ಾeತ ಶುದa ಕ�ಯಪತ� ಬ#ೆದು/ೊcVದುa ಅದರ ಮೂಲ ಪ��ಯನು� Iಾಜರುಪ�ಸ�ಾ��ೆ . ಅದನು� 6'ಾPೆ \ 1 ಆ� ಗು��D/ೊಳT�ಾ��ೆ . ಅದರ�A �ಾ�ೆ 'ೆಡೂf ಸ)�,ನ 6�ೇಶನವನು� �ಾ�ಯ (ಾ)*ೕನ/ೆ0 /ೊಟV ಬ@ೆg ಸ]ಷV�ಾ� ಬ#ೆಯ�ಾ��ೆ _._ ಆ ಕ�ಯಪತ�ದ�Aರುವ 6�ೇಶನದ ಸಂhೆ ಮತು, iೆಕು0ಬಂ� 'ೆಡೂf ಸ)�,ನ�A ಬ#ೆದ ಅಳ4ೆ ಮತು, iೆಕು0ಬಂ� ಒಂದ/ೊ0ಂದು 4ಾjೆ�ಾಗುತ,ªÉ _._ ಕ�ಯ/ೆ0 4ೆ@ೆದು/ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ 4ೆC@ೆ ಕೂಡ /ೊಡ�ಾ�ದುa ಅದ/ೆ0 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟV ರOೕ�ಯನು� ಕೂಡIಾಜರುಪ�ಸ�ಾ��ೆ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 6'ಾPೆ \3 Cಂದ \6 ಆ� ಗು��D/ೊಳT�ಾ��ೆ. ಕ�ಯ/ೆ0 4ೆ@ೆದು/ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಋಣnಾರ ಪ��ಾಣಪತ�ದ�A ಅದನು� ನಮೂ�Dದುa ಅದು 6'ಾPೆ \ _7_ ಆ� ಗು��D/ೊಳT�ಾ��ೆ _._ ಹುK�ಾವL @ಾ�ಮ ಪಂiಾe,ಯವರು ಕೂಡ �ಾ�ಯ Iೆಸರನು� �ಾಖ�ೆಯ�A ಬ#ೆದು/ೊಂ�ದುa ಆ ಸ)�,@ೆ _413_ ನಂಬgï PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ 6'ಾPೆ \ _8_ vÉjUÉ rªÀiÁåAqï jf¸ÀÖj£À GvÁgÀ¢AzÀ ವಕ,�ಾಗುತ,�ೆ. . ಈ ಎ�ಾA ದ(ಾ,�ೇಜುಗಳ�Aರುವ ಸಂಗ�ಗಳನು� Pೋ��ಾಗ �ಾ� �ಾ�ೆ 'ೆಡೂ� ಸ)�,ನ /ಾನೂನುಬದ^�ಾದ (ಾ)*ೕನದ�A�ಾaPೆAzÀÄ ವಕ,�ಾಗುತ,�ೆ . ಮು6/ಾ�ೇರಪ] (ಾ)*ೕನ oಟುV/ೊcVಲA ಮತು, ಅ�ೇ Cೕ� c . O�ೕ.6�ಾಸ#ೆ�d �ಾ�@ೆ (ಾ)ೕನ oಟುV/ೊcVಲA�ೆಂದು 4ೋCಸಲು ಪ��ಾ� Pಾ`�ಾಲಯ/ೆ0 Iಾಜ#ಾ� �ಾವL�ೇ ಪL#ಾ�ೆ Iಾಜರುಪ�DಲA . �ೕ�ರು�ಾಗ�ಾ�ಯ�ಾ�ೆ ಸ)�,ನ/ಾನೂನುಬದ^�ಾದಸುಬ�ನ�A�ಾa£ÉA§ ಸಂಗ�ರುಜು�ಾ4ಾಗುತ,�ೆ ."

¶165

20 -

¶166

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

Similarly in O.S No.3865/2004, at para 12 the

¶169

Trial Court has categorically upheld the plaintiff's vendor/plaintiff in O.S. No.3865/2004 lawful possession. This finding assumes significance and the same is extracted which reads as under:

¶170

"12. �Pಾಂಕ 25.01.1989 ರಂದು ಮು6/ಾ�ೇರಪ] ಈತನ ಪರ�ಾ� c . O�ೕ.6�ಾಸ #ೆ�d Pೊಂ�ಾeತ ಶುದa ಕ�ಯಪತ� ಬ#ೆದು/ೊcVದುa ಅದರ ಮೂಲ ಪ��ಯನು� Iಾಜರುಪ�ಸ�ಾ��ೆ . ಅದನು� 6'ಾPೆ \ 1 ಆ� ಗು��D/ೊಳT�ಾ��ೆ . ಅದರ�A �ಾ�ೆ 'ೆಡೂf ಸ)�,ನ 6�ೇಶನವನು� �ಾ�ಯ (ಾ)*ೕನ/ೆ0 /ೊಟV ಬ@ೆg ಸ]ಷV�ಾ� ಬ#ೆಯ�ಾ��ೆ _._ ಆ ಕ�ಯಪತ�ದ�Aರುವ 6�ೇಶನದ ಸಂhೆ ಮತು, iೆಕು0ಬಂ� 'ೆಡೂf ಸ)�,ನ�A ಬ#ೆದ ಅಳ4ೆ ಮತು, pಕು0ಬಂ� ಒಂದ/ೊ0ಂದು 4ಾjೆ�ಾಗುತ,�ೆ _._ 6�ೇಶನ ಸಂhೆ 3 ಕ�ಯ/ೆ0 4ೆ@ೆದು/ೊಂಡನಂತರಋಣnಾರಪ��ಾಣಪತ�ದ�Aಅದನು� ನಮೂ�Dದುa ಅದು 6'ಾPೆ \ 6 ಆ� ಗು��D/ೊಳT�ಾ��ೆ . ಸ)�,ನ qೕ�ೆ �ಾವL�ೇ ಋಣnಾರBಲA�ೆಂದು 4ೋCಸಲು ಪ��ಾಣಪತ� Iಾಜರುಪ�Dದುa ಅದು 6'ಾPೆ \ 7 ಆ�ಗು��D/ೊಳT�ಾ��ೆ . ಆ ಎರಡೂ �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ�A�ಾ�ೆ 6�ೇಶನದ ಸಂhೆ BD,ೕಣ� Iಾಗೂ iೆಕು0ಬಂ� ಕೂಡ ಬ#ೆಯ�ಾ��ೆ _._ ಹುK�ಾವL @ಾ�ಮಪಂiಾe,ಯವರು ಕೂಡ�ಾ�ಯIೆಸರನು� �ಾಖ�ೆಯ�A ಬ#ೆದು/ೊಂ�ದುa ಆ ಸ)�,@ೆ _436/3_ ನಂಬgï PÉÆಡ�ಾ��ೆrಂದು 6'ಾPೆ \ _8_ Cಂದ ವಕ,�ಾಗುತ,�ೆ . ಕ�ಯ/ೆ0 4ೆ@ೆದು/ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ 4ೆC@ೆ ಕೂಡ /ೊಡ�ಾ�ದುaಅದ/ೆ0 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟV ರOೕ�ಯನು� ಕೂಡIಾಜರುಪ�ಸ�ಾ��ೆ . ಈ ಎ�ಾA ದ(ಾ,�ೇಜುಗಳ�Aರುವ ಸಂಗ�ಗಳನು� Pೋ��ಾಗ �ಾ� �ಾ�ೆ 'ೆಡೂ� ಸ)�,ನ /ಾನೂನುಬದ^�ಾದ (ಾ)*ೕನದ�A�ಾajೆಂದು ವಕ,�ಾಗುತ,�ೆ . ಮು6/ಾ�ೇರಪ] (ಾ)*ೕನoಟುV/ೊcVಲA ಮತು, ಅ�ೇ Cೕ�c . O�ೕ.6�ಾಸ#ೆ�d �ಾ�@ೆ (ಾ)*ೕನoಟುV/ೊcVಲA�ೆಂದು4ೋCಸಲು ಪ��ಾ�Pಾ`�ಾಲಯ/ೆ0

¶171

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶172

21 -

¶173

HC-KAR

¶174

Iಾಜ#ಾ��ಾವL�ೇಪL#ಾ�ೆ Iಾಜರುಪ�DಲA . �ೕ�ರು�ಾಗ�ಾ�ಯು�ಾ�ೆ ಸ)�,ನ /ಾನೂನುಬದ^�ಾದ ಸುಬ*�ನ�A�ಾajೆಂಬ ಸಂಗ� ರುಜು�ಾ4ಾಗುತ,�ೆ ."

¶175

The Trial Court has categorically held that the

¶176

plaintiff's vendor was put in possession subsequent to the sale deed and also that the defendant does not have any documents to establish his title or possession over the suit schedule property.

¶177

In the present batch of suits, the defendant admittedly traces his title through the very same Venkataswamy, who had suffered decrees in O.S.No.3771/2004, O.S.No.3864/2004 and

¶178

O.S.No.3865/2004. In those earlier proceedings, the Court

¶179

had specifically held that Venkataswamy did not produce any acceptable documentary evidence to substantiate his alleged right, title or possession over Sy.No.81/3

¶180

measuring 1 acre 6 guntas. The Court further held that the plaintiffs therein had proved their possession on the

¶181

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶182

HC-KAR

¶183

strength of registered title deeds tracing back to Munikaverappa.

¶184

Having recorded such categorical findings in the earlier suits wherein Venkataswamy was defendant No.1 and had actively contested the matter the very same Court, in the subsequent suits, could not have taken a diametrically opposite view and held that the present plaintiffs were required to seek the relief of declaration and that a suit for injunction simplicitor was not maintainable. When the predecessor-in-title of the present defendant had already been non-suited on the issue of title and possession, and when his claim over the survey number was held to be doubtful and unsupported by evidence, the derivative claim of the present defendant could not have been elevated so as to non-suit the plaintiffs.

¶185

The principle that a transferee stands in the shoes of his vendor is well settled. The present defendant

¶186

23 -

¶187

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

cannot claim a better title than Venkataswamy, whose claim over the property has already been judicially negatived. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the present defendant, if he asserted an independent and superior title over 30 guntas out of Sy.No.81/3, to institute a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs and establish his right in a manner known to law.

¶190

Under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff, particularly when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to or enjoyment of property. Further, Section 41 makes it clear that injunction cannot be refused arbitrarily when the plaintiff establishes lawful possession and threat of interference. It is only in cases where there is a serious cloud over title that the plaintiff

¶191

may be driven to seek declaration. However, when the defendant’s title itself has been adjudicated upon and

¶192

24 -

¶193

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶194

HC-KAR

¶195

found unsubstantiated in earlier proceedings, and such findings have attained finality, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish a better right.

¶196

In the present case, instead of relegating the defendant, who traces title through a person already injuncted and whose claim was held doubtful to seek appropriate declaratory relief, the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the plaintiffs’ suits on the ground that they ought to have sought declaration. This approach runs contrary to the findings recorded in the earlier three suits and ignores the binding effect and evidentiary value of those judgments.

¶197

The dismissal of the subsequent suits, without properly appreciating the conclusive findings recorded against Venkataswamy and without examining the derivative nature of the present defendant’s claim, clearly suffers from perversity and inconsistency. The reasoning

¶198

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶199

25 -

¶200

HC-KAR

¶201

adopted by the Trial Court is self-contradictory and unsustainable in law.

¶202

Accordingly, in the light of the findings recorded

¶203

in O.S.No.3771/2004, O.S.No.3864/2004 and O.S.No.3865/2004, and having regard to the settled principles governing suits for injunction under the Specific Relief Act, point nos. (i) to (iii) are liable to be answered in the “ Affirmative ”.

¶204

Conclusions and Reasons for Reversal

¶205

In view of the detailed discussion made supra, and on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, this Court records the following conclusions and assigns reasons for reversing the judgments and decrees rendered

¶206

by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1639/2009, O.S.No.1224/2009 and O.S.No.1227/2009:

¶207

The Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate

¶208

that in O.S.No.3771/2004, O.S.No.3864/2004 and

¶209

26 -

¶210

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶211

HC-KAR

¶212

O.S.No.3865/2004, decrees of perpetual injunction were

¶213

granted against Venkataswamy, who is the predecessorin-title of the present defendant. In those suits, the Court categorically held that Venkataswamy had failed to establish his right, title or possession over Sy.No.81/3 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas. Those decrees have attained finality.

¶214

The present defendant, tracing title through Venkataswamy, cannot claim a better right than his vendor. The Trial Court, in the present suits, has ignored the binding nature and evidentiary value of the earlier judgments and has taken a contrary view. This approach is legally unsustainable and renders the impugned judgments perverse.

¶215

In the earlier three suits, the Court had recorded findings that the respective plaintiffs therein were in lawful possession based on registered title deeds tracing to Munikaverappa. In the present suits also, the plaintiffs

¶216

27 -

¶217

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶218

HC-KAR

¶219

have produced registered sale deeds tracing title through the very same source and have established possession through documentary evidence such as tax paid receipts and evidence of construction.

¶220

When the defendant’s predecessor had already failed to establish title and possession, and when the plaintiffs proved lawful possession, the suits for injunction simplicitor were clearly maintainable under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiffs ought to have sought declaratory relief.

¶221

A plaintiff is required to seek declaration only when a genuine and substantial cloud is cast on title. In the present case, the alleged cloud was based solely on the claim of Venkataswamy, whose title had already been disbelieved in prior adjudication. Therefore, there was no legally sustainable cloud warranting a suit for declaration.

¶222

28 -

¶223

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶224

HC-KAR

¶225

The Trial Court, without appreciating that the defendant’s title was already held doubtful in earlier litigation, wrongly compelled the plaintiffs to seek declaration. This reasoning is inconsistent with settled principles governing injunction suits.

¶226

The present defendant derives title from Venkataswamy, who suffered decrees in earlier suits. A transferee stands in the shoes of his transferor. When the vendor’s claim has been negatived, the burden shifts to the transferee to establish independent title in a comprehensive declaratory suit.

¶227

Instead of relegating the defendant to establish his alleged right and title in appropriate proceedings, the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the plaintiffs’ suits. This approach reverses the settled burden of proof and is contrary to law.

¶228

The very same Court which earlier held that Venkataswamy had no substantiated title or possession

¶229

29 -

¶230

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶231

HC-KAR

¶232

over Sy.No.81/3 has, in the subsequent suits, held that the present plaintiffs cannot maintain injunction suits. This diametrically opposite view, without distinguishing earlier findings, demonstrates clear inconsistency and nonapplication of judicial discipline.

¶233

Such contradictory findings, in respect of the same survey number and substantially similar claims, amount to perversity warranting appellate interference.

¶234

Accordingly, the judgments and decrees passed

¶235

by the Trial Court in all the three suits are liable to be set aside and the suits deserve to be decreed.

¶236

Finding on point No.(iv):-

¶237

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶238

ORDER

¶239

i. All the three regular first appeals are allowed ;

¶240

30 -

¶241

NC: 2026:KHC:9437 RFA No. 414 of 2012 C/W RFA No. 415 of 2012 RFA No. 416 of 2012

¶242

HC-KAR

¶243

ii. The judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.1639/2009 is set aside. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.1639/2009 is decreed. The defendant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over Site No.23;

¶244

iii. The judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.1224/2009 is set aside. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.1224/2009 is decreed. The defendant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over Site No.27;

¶245

iv. The judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.1227/2009 is set aside. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.1227/2009 is decreed. The defendant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over Site No.3;

¶246

v. Draw decree accordingly.

¶247

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶248

HDK

¶249

Page No.30 is re-typed and re-placed vide Chamber Order dated 16.04.2026

Shri N Vasudeva Bhat v. Shri H M Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri N Vasudeva Bhat v. Shri H M Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nagamma Vs Sri N Nagaraj

Smt. P H Nagamani Vs the Karnataka Slum Areas

Sri D Lokanathan Vs a Farnandis

Smt Lakshmi K Vs Sri R S Yerrappa

M/S Century Galaxy Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Societies

Sri. Manjunatha Vs Sri v Chitti Babu