Sri. Ramesh G Vs Sri Rajanna L

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO. 6150/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, 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

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The captioned appeal is by the defendants directed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.6150/2016, whereby plaintiff's suit seeking injunction simpliciter is decreed and defendants are restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

¶31

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶32

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶33

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.27, forming part of Sridevi extension, situated at Medarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the

¶38

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 deeds. Insofar as the suit schedule site is concerned, it is contended that Ramaiah executed a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1999 in favour of Srinivasan. Pursuant to the said conveyance, Srinivasan is stated to have secured mutation of his name in the records of Abbigere Grama Panchayat and to have paid property taxes.

¶39

It is further pleaded that Srinivasan, acting through his duly constituted General Power of Attorney holder, executed a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2006 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

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

(BBMP) pursuant to a Gazette notification. Consequent thereto, BBMP is said to have issued a khata extract in the name of Gangamma and to have collected property taxes from her in respect of the suit property.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

Upon service of summons, the defendants

¶47

entered appearance and filed their written statement,

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

stoutly denying the averments made in the plaint. The 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. 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

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

26.09.2016. On these assertions, the defendants sought

¶55

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

¶56

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 fifteen documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-15. 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.

¶57

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

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

institution of the suit. The Court further held that the plaintiff had proved the alleged interference at the hands of the defendants. Consequently, the suit for permanent injunction came to be decreed.

¶62

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:

¶63

(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?

¶64

(ii) What order?

¶65

9 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Finding on Point No.(i):

¶69

On a meticulous examination of the pleadings

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

non-alienation clause, Ramaiah could not have executed an outright sale deed at that point of time and, therefore, executed a GPA coupled with an agreement of sale in

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

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.

¶77

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 13.02.2006 executed by Srinivasan through his GPA holder. 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.

¶78

Insofar as possession is concerned, the plaintiff has produced material evidence to substantiate actual and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The tax paid receipts, ‘B’ extract and property extract issued by

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

BBMP demonstrate that subsequent to the registered conveyances, the name of the plaintiff’s predecessor-intitle was entered in the municipal records. Exs.P-12 and P-13, being tax paid receipts and approved building plan issued by the local authority, 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.

¶83

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 relief's 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 Ex.D-6, reveals that G. Ramesh had instituted the said suit not for specific performance, but for bare

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

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.

¶88

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.

¶89

In this context, a substantial question arises as to whether Ramaiah, having already executed a registered sale deed in favour of Srinivasan on 27.03.1999, who in

¶90

13 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

turn sold the suit schedule property to plaintiff, through his GPA holder vide registered sale deed dated 13.02.2006 had subsisting right, title or interest thereafter, and whether any subsequent acknowledgment in a

¶94

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.

¶95

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

¶96

14 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

directly through a registered conveyance executed by the original grantee in 1999, followed by subsequent registered transactions in 2006 , all of which are anterior in point of time to the sale deed dated 26.09.2016 relied upon by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶100

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.

¶101

It is, however, clarified that the decree for injunction granted in the present suit shall be subject to the final outcome of the comprehensive title suit pending

¶102

15 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:9765 RFA No. 676 of 2020

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

in O.S.No.972/2017. The judgments relied upon by the

¶106

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

¶107

arising out of a suit for injunction simpliciter. Accordingly,

¶108

Point No.(i) is answered in the Negative .

¶109

Finding on Point No.(ii):

¶110