Smt G Prathiba Vs Smt Chethan M Shastry — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt G Prathiba Vs Smt Chethan M Shastry — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal stands dismissed and the Trial Court's judgment and decree decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction remain undisturbed; I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for injunction in the absence of relief of declaration of title. +1 more

Court's answer

Even assuming the general power of attorney was executed by Ramappa Kumar in 1993, reference to a site number in Exhibit-D23 does not inspire confidence, because in 1993 the property was not yet converted for non-agricultural use and there could be no formation of any site; further, the property sold pursuant to that power of attorney is different from the property in the sale deed.

Ratio / Principle

A suit for bare injunction is maintainable even in the absence of relief of declaration of title where the plaintiff establishes possession based on a registered sale deed — here, in a situation where it is admitted that Ramappa Kumar was the owner and the plaintiff claims title from his daughter (defendant No.1), who did not dispute her status as daughter and did not submit herself to cross-examination despite disputing execution of the sale deed.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court's finding that the plaintiff is in possession pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2008 cannot be said to be an erroneous finding.ratio¶22
Defendant No.2 fails to establish possession under the registered sale deed: the Trial Court has disbelieved the claim of defendant No.2 based on the registered sale deed at Exhibit-D3, given the mismatch between the power of attorney (Exhibit-D23) description and the sale deed, and the impossibility of site formation before the 2003 conversion.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Anant Ramanath Hegde), 13.01.2026: RFA No.899/2019 (S.96 CPC) against decree of bare injunction in O.S.2378/2013 (XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decree dated 19.01.2019) — DISMISSED. Held: (i) a suit for bare injunction is maintainable even without relief of declaration of title where the plaintiff establishes possession under a registered sale deed — here Exhibit-P1 (05.08.2008) from defendant No.1, daughter of the admittedly-original owner Ramappa Kumar, who did not dispute her status nor tender herself for cross-examination; (ii) defendant No.2 (= appellant) failed to establish possession under the sale deed Exhibit-D3 executed by the power of attorney holder of Ramappa Kumar: the GPA Exhibit-D23 (05.07.1993) boundaries/description do not tally with the sale deed and plaint, and its site-number reference lacks credence since conversion for non-agricultural residential use occurred only on 24.03.2003. Trial Court's possession finding not erroneous; no interference warranted; stay application I.A.No.1/2019 lapsed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2019 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT G PRATHIBA, D/O SMT SULOCHANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.3812, 1^ST FLOOR, 6^TH CROSS, B BLOCK, GAYATHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560021, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SMT U UMA, D/O G.R.SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.3812, 1^ST FLOOR, 6^TH CROSS, B BLOCK, GAYATHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560021.

&APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS G S.,ADVOCATE) AND:

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT CHETHAN M SHASTRY, D/O SRI MRUTHUNJAYA SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, 1^ST CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560072.

MRS. BINDHIYA R KUMAR, D/O LATE RAMAPPAKUMAR ALIAS R KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.19, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 040.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI YOGESHA B POOJARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.01.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.2378/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated

19.01.2019 in O.S. No.2378/2013 on the file of XXXIX Additional

City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

In terms of the said judgment and decree, the

plaintiff's suit for bare injunction is decreed. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has established his possession over the property.

The defendants aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree are before this Court.

The suit property is described as under:-

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

"All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing No.42, present Khata No.35/2/42 formed in the land bearing Survey No.35/2, situated at Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bangalore north taluk,

Measuring :-

East to West : 40 feet; North to South : 30 feet, In all 1,200 square feet.

BOUNDED :-

East by : Road, West : Site No.52, North : Site No.41, South : Site No.43."

The suit property was originally part of survey No.35/2 and it was converted for non-agricultural residential use vide conversion order dated 24.03.2003. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from defendant No.1. who is said to be daughter of late Ramappa Kumar.

The plaintiff claims that Ramappa Kumar was the original owner of the property and after his demise his daughter acquired right over the property. The plaintiff claims title and possession based on the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2008.

Same is marked at Exhibit-P1. The plaintiff has produced the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

Khata register, affidavit and encumbrance certificate to assert his possession over the property.

The plaintiff alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 do not have any right over the property and defendant No.2 is claiming title and possession based on the registered sale deed said to have been executed by the power of attorney holder of Ramappa Kumar, the father of defendant No.1.

Defendant No.2 to substantiate her claim for possession and title over the property has produced Exhibit-D3, the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2002 executed by the power of attorney holder of Ramappa Kumar and in addition has also produced the Exhibit-D23, the general power of attorney dated 05.07.1993.

The Trial Court has considered the contentions based on the evidence placed before the Court. The Trial Court has noticed that the boundaries shown in the general power of attorney marked at Exhibit-D23 do not tally with the boundaries shown in the sale deed and the boundaries shown in the plaint.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

The Trial Court has also noticed that the property was not converted for non-agricultural use in the year 2002 when defendant No.2 claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No.1 based on the power of attorney of 1993. It is noticed that the conversion for non-agricultural residential use happened in the year 2003. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has disbelieved the defendants' contention that defendant No.2 is in possession of the property.

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for declaration of title and bare injunction, suit is not permissible given the fact that there is a cloud over the plaintiff's title and property moreso in a situation where there are two registered sale deeds, one in favour of the plaintiff and one in favour of defendant No.2.

It is his further submission that the layout plan is not produced by the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction.

It is also urged that defendant No.1 is not the daughter of the late Ramappa Kumar.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/

respondent would urge that defendant No.1 has admitted her status as daughter of Ramappa Kumar. It is not in dispute that Ramappa Kumar was the owner of the property. Plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.1 has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

Defendant No.1 has not disputed the execution of

the sale deed by leading evidence though she has taken a contention in a statement that she has not executed the sale deed.

The description of the property shown in the sale deed in the name of plaintiff tallies with the description of the property shown in the plaint as such, the Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for injunction is the submission on behalf of the plaintiff.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

The following points arise for consideration:

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

(a) Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for injunction in the absence of relief of declaration of title.

(b) Whether the defendant No.2/appellant is able to establish that he is in possession of the property under the registered sale deed of dated 30.05.2002.

As far as the contention relating to maintainability of suit for bare injunction is concerned, it is to be noticed that the suit is based on a registered sale deed said to have been executed by defendant No.1. The property records stand in the name of the plaintiff. Merely because the defendant No.2 has raised a contention that the plaintiff is the owner of the property that does not automatically mean that the plaintiff is under obligation to file a suit for declaration of title.

If the plaintiff is able to establish his possession over

the property based on the registered sale deed, then, the suit for bare junction is maintainable even in the absence of relief of declaration, more particularly, in this case, in a situation where it

is an admitted fact that Ramappa Kumar was the owner of the property, as the plaintiff claims title over the property from the daughter of Ramappa Kumar. Though defendant No.2 raised the

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

contention that defendant No.1 is not the daughter of Ramappa Kumar, defendant No.1 has not disputed her status as daughter of Ramappa Kumar. Defendant No.1 has disputed the contention relating to the execution of sale deed by her in favour of the plaintiff. However, defendant No.1 has not chosen to examine herself and has not tendered herself for the cross-examination.

Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has referred to the registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff said to have been executed by defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 claims title over the property under Ramappa Kumar and Ramappa Kumar admittedly was the owner of the property.

In the facts and circumstances appearing from the documents referred to above, the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is in possession of the property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2008 cannot be said to be an erroneous finding.

And as already noticed the Trial Court has disbelieved the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on the premise that the description of the property referred to in

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

Exhibit-D23 the power of attorney does not tally with the description of the property shown in the sale deed marked at Exhibit-D1.

Assuming that the power of attorney was executed in the year 1993 by Ramappa Kumar, then also it is relevant to notice that in the year 1993 the property was not yet converted for non-agricultural use. Thus, there is no question of formation of any site in the year 1993. Thus, reference to site number in the general power of attorney marked Exhibit-D23 does not inspire confidence.

In addition, as already noticed the property sold pursuant to the aforementioned power of attorney marked at Exhibit-D23 is different from the property mentioned in the sale deed Exhibit D9.

Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has disbelieved the claim of defendant No.2 based on the registered sale deed at Exhibit-D3.

In case the appellant has any grievance against his

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1990 RFA No. 899 of 2019

HC-KAR

vendor, it is for the appellant to seek relief as advised in law.

In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 for

stay does not survive for consideration.

Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere

with the impugned judgment and decree.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18