Dismissed¶118

Shivamma v. Shivaramanna

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2026RSA/385/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Perpetual injunction suit resting on possession; defence of ancestral grant with permanent non-alienation condition and PTCL Act / SC/ST Act proceedings rejected as title questions outside a bare-injunction suit; scope of Section 100 CPC; concurrent findings of trial Court and first appellate Court upheld; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed at admission — High Court of Karnataka, 12.03.2026 (Arasikere courts below).

What did the court decide?

In a suit for bare/perpetual injunction, the Court is required to see only whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; questions of title, ownership, validity of the sale deed and the non-alienation condition in the alleged grant fall outside the scope of such a suit. ¶94

Shivamma Vs Shivaramanna — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶118

Issue for consideration

Whether the substantial questions of law urged by the appellants/defendants — non-consideration of the permanent non-alienation condition attached to the alleged ancestral grant, and non-maintainability of the civil suit in view of proceedings under the PTCL Act — arise for consideration in this second appeal. +1 more

¶113

Court's answer

¶94

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction on the basis of their possession and the defendants' admission regarding the sale deed and khata standing in the plaintiffs' name; the first appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the decree, and no perversity was demonstrated.

¶99

Key takeaways

The powers of the second appellate Court under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited; the appellate Court sitting in second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless perversity is shown in the judgments of the Courts below.ratio¶107
Where two Courts have concurrently considered the questions of fact and law, the second appellate Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record.ratio¶111
The substantial questions of law urged by the appellants in the appeal memo do not arise for consideration, as they were adverted to by both the trial Court and the first appellate Court; the appellants have not made out any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) dismissed at the admission stage. Plaintiffs, sons of Shivalingappa who purchased the suit land (Sy. No. 204, Arasikere taluk) under a registered sale deed dated 31.05.1946 from Ramabovi and minor children including Hosurabovi and who held it under a registered settlement deed, obtained a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants (legal representatives of Hosurabovi), affirmed by the first appellate Court. The defendants pleaded that the property was ancestral grant land subject to a permanent non-alienation condition and that the civil suit was barred having regard to proceedings under the PTCL Act and a petition under the SC/ST Act. Held: in a suit for bare injunction the Court need examine only possession and enjoyment, not title or the validity of the sale deed; the powers under Section 100 CPC are narrow and limited, and concurrent findings unmarked by perversity ought not to be disturbed by a third opinion; the substantial questions of law urged in the appeal memo do not arise. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2023 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1. SHIVAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE VASURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶11

R/O MANNUVADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK -583 125.

¶12

REKHA

¶13

W/O SURESH, D/O LATE VASURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

R/O MANNUVADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKATTE HBOLI, ARSIKERE TALUK -583 125.

¶16

SHASHIKALA W/O ANANDABOVI, D/O LATE VASURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O KALENAHALLIHATTI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK -583 125.

¶17

MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE VASURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶18

R/O MANNUVADDARAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK-583125.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SHIVARAMANNA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O D.R.G. KOPPALU, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK-583125.

¶27

SHIVARAMANNA

¶28

S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O DODDARAMEGOWDANA KOPPALU, HOLALKERE POST, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK-583125.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.24/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2018 PASSED IS OS NO.366/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

Heard learned counsel Sri.R.Shashidhara for the appellants.

¶38

This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the defendant Sri.Hosurabovi. The appellants herein are questioning the judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate Court by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere in RA.No.24/2018 dated 01.12.2022, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere in O.S.No.366/2010 dated 20.02.2018.

¶39

Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to

¶40

as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of brevity. The appellants, though legal representatives of the defendant, shall be considered as defendants.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶45

It is the case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court

¶46

that plaintiffs' father, namely Shivalingappa, purchased the suit schedule property from one Ramabovi, S/o Venkatabovi and minor children by name Hosurabovi by way of a registered sale deed dated 31.05.1946. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs' father purchased 2 acres 10 guntas towards southern side of survey No.204 totally comprising 4 acres 19 guntas. The first plaintiff did not get married, and second plaintiff was blind. Hence, for their maintenance, Shivalingappa who is the father of the plaintiffs executed registered settlement deed in favour of plaintiffs. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs sold 0-57 guntas of the eastern side in favour of Yallamma by way of registered sale deed and retained 0.35 guntas for their own purpose. The khatha and the revenue entries were

¶47

shown in the name of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

schedule property, which was their only source of livelihood.

¶51

It is the case of the plaintiffs that this being the state of affairs, defendants who have no manner of right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property by claiming it to be their ancestral property and filed a petition under the SC/ST Act on 03.06.2007 before the District Commissioner and made an unlawful attempt to acquire the possession of the property. Left with no other alternative, plaintiffs filed suit for perpetual injunction.

¶52

Upon summons being issued, defendants

¶53

appeared before the Court and filed the written statement, denied the averments made by the plaintiffs, and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶54

On the basis of pleadings the trial Court framed following issues for consideration.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

1. Whether plaintiff's prove that, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit?

¶59

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendant has interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

¶60

3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of the P.T.C.L.Act?

¶61

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for?

¶62

5. What order or decree?

¶63

In order to substantiate the issues and prove the case, one of the legal representatives of the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1, namely Shivaramanna and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked the documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9.

¶64

Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, after analyzing the entire materials and the arguments of learned counsel for both parties, agreed with the contentions of the plaintiffs, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs by restraining

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

the defendant or anybody claiming through him from interfering or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the defendants challenged the same before the first appellate Court in R.A.24/2018. The first appeal came to be filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant i.e. wife and children of the original defendant. On appearance of the respondents/plaintiffs, the first appellate Court upon re-appreciation and re-consideration of the materials placed on record and on going through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, formulated the following points for consideration.

¶69

1. Whether the Trial Court has properly appreciated the law, oral and documentary evidence on record?

¶70

2. Whether the judgment and decree under challenge is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and such calls for interference at the hands of this court?

¶71

3.What order?

¶72

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The first appellate Court on careful perusal of

¶76

the entire evidence both oral and documentary, and the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, re-appreciated and re-considered the matter once again including the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The first appellate Court did not find favour with the appellants/defendants, agreed with the contentions of the plaintiffs, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court holding that there was no error committed by the trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction. It is this judgment that is questioned by the appellants/defendants before this Court in this appeal on the ground that the judgments rendered by both the Courts are illegal, perverse and arbitrary, contrary to the materials placed on record and opposed to the probabilities of the case.

¶77

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

It is vehemently contended by the learned

¶81

counsel for the appellants/defendants that the judgment rendered by both the Courts runs contrary to the material evidence on record as the plaintiffs did not dispute the fact that the grandfather of the defendants had acquired the property by way of grant and there was a permanent nonalienation condition, which has not been considered by both the Courts. So therefore, he contends that there was no right vested with the vendor of the plaintiffs to have passed on the title to the plaintiffs, and neither the grandfather nor the father had any independent right to alienate the same.

¶82

It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the trial Court and the first appellate Court would have to see whether the plaintiffs have made out a valid case to pass a judgment and decree on the strength of their own case, but not on the weakness of the defendants. It is for the plaintiffs to establish their case independently without

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

relying upon the weakness of the defendants, either oral

¶87

or documentary, as it is the plaintiffs who have come before the Court and hence, they have to prove their case on the basis of the materials available with them.

¶88

It is also contended by learned counsel for the defendants that in view of the pendency of the application filed before the provisions under the PTCL Act, the question of the Civil Court entertaining such a suit would not arise. All these aspects have conveniently been ignored despite the admission of the plaintiffs with regard to the property being owned by the ancestors of the defendants and there being a non-alienation clause/condition. Therefore, he contends that substantial questions of law are required to be framed for consideration in the appeal with regard to the nonconsideration of the evidence placed on record before both the courts. Hence, he seeks to allow this appeal and this Court to frame substantial questions of law for further consideration.

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

I do not find any good reason or ground or

¶93

necessity for issuance of notice to the respondents/ plaintiffs, as this Court is not inclined to accept the argument put forth by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants for the following reasons.

¶94

Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of a perpetual injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. No doubt defendants have taken a plea that the suit is not maintainable, and several contentions are also taken with regard to non-maintainability of the suit in view of certain proceedings pending under the SC/ST Act. All those are questions with regard to title and ownership and the validity of the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs and executed by the grandfather of the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. What was required to be seen by the trial Court is only whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

The trial Court on examination of the materials

¶99

placed on record, both oral and documentary, had clearly formulated relevant points has issues to be considered. No issue is framed with regard to the declaration of title, as it was not required for the reason that suit was filed only for bare injunction. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and on the basis of admission of the defendants with regard to the sale deed and katha extracted in the name of plaintiffs, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The same has been reconsidered and reappreciated by the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court did not find favour with the appellants/defendants herein. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the appellants/defendants, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The trial Court has also made a note that the plaintiffs have made out sufficient grounds and materials placed to protect his

¶100

13 -

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

possession in the suit schedule property and the defendant

¶104

has the liberty and remedy to follow the procedure laid

¶105

down in the PTCL Act, if required to evict the plaintiffs in accordance with law, by following due process of law. The same has been well appreciated by the first appellate Court and no illegality has been found in the said judgment. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal and

¶106

confirmed the same.

¶107

Section 100 of CPC deals with the Scope and powers of the Appellate Court. It is a no more res integra to state that the powers as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited. This Court, in several catena of judgments, has held that the Appellate Court sitting in the second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless there is perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. When two Courts have already considered the question of fact and the question of law to a large extent in detail, even if this

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:14971 RSA No. 385 of 2023

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

Court finds third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both Courts, it is a general Rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record.

¶112

In the present appeal as well, the

¶113

appellants/defendants have not made out any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the wellreasoned judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court on the issues that were involved in the suit. The substantial questions of law pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants would not arise for consideration in the present case, as they have been adverted to by both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. And in my opinion, the substantial questions of law as urged by the appellant in the appeal memo do not arise for consideration. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order:

¶114