Disposed¶130

Smt T R Sujatha v. Sri Kumar

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2026RSA/646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court RSA 646/2025 (INJ) Pandavapura/Mandya; Section 100 CPC substantial question of law; second appeal scope narrow; concurrent findings of fact not re-appreciated; suit for bare permanent injunction unsustainable when title denied/cloud on title - declaration and possession relief required; trial reliance on Anatulla Sudhakar v. Bucchi Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2003 (as recited); registered sale deed, khata, panchayath records and tax receipts; Survey No.357 grant/mutation dispute; appeal rejected at admission stage 03.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal stands rejected (no substantial question of law framed). ¶130

Smt T R Sujatha Vs Sri Kumar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal stands rejected (no substantial question of law framed).

¶130

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff has made out a case for interference in the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court? +1 more

¶90

Court's answer

In view of the provisions of Section 100 CPC, the scope for interference in a second appeal is very narrow and limited.

¶121

Ratio / Principle

A question of fact already decided by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be imposed upon differently by this Court; the second-appeal Court does not sit in appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence on record.

¶126

Key takeaways

This Court found no good ground or cogent reason to appreciate the plaintiff's contention so as to frame a substantial question of law for consideration of the appeal; consequently the appeal was rejected.ratio¶126

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under S.100 CPC, High Court of Karnataka (Pradeep Singh Yerur J.), decided 03.03.2026. The plaintiff appellant had sued for bare permanent injunction over vacant suit schedule property claimed via registered sale deed dated 03.06.2009 from one Kempegowda, supported by panchayath records and tax receipts. The defendants denied her title, pleading the land formed part of Survey No.357 granted to their father Bettegowda and mutated to them. Both the trial Court (O.S.No.117/2012, decree 22.07.2022) and the first appellate Court (RA No.54/2022, decree 16.01.2025) dismissed, holding that once title and possession are denied and a cloud raised on title, the plaintiff ought to have sought declaration and possession rather than bare injunction (the trial Court having relied on Anatulla Sudhakar V/s Bucchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2003). The single judge declined to formulate any substantial question of law, noting the S.100 scope of interference is very narrow and limited, that a settled question of fact cannot be re-appreciated or overturned in second appeal, and rejected the appeal at the admission stage.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT T R SUJATHA W/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571434

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. G B NANDISH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI KUMAR S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI RAMACHANDRE GOWDA S/O LATE SRI BETTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶15

SRI RAMANNA S/O LATE SRI BETTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶16

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571434

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.54/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.117/2012 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.G. B.

¶25

Nandish Gowda.

¶26

Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶27

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging

¶28

the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge JMFC-Pandapura in RA No. 54/2022 dated 16.01.2025, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFCPandapura in O.S.No.117/2012. The plaintiff is before this

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Court aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the

¶33

Courts of dismissal of the suit filed by him for a permanent injunction.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶35

The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, having purchased the property from one Kempegowda, son of the late.Kempe Gowda and his wife Smt.Vanajakshi through a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2009. It is also stated that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. All panchayath records stand in the name of the plaintiff. Apart from that, the plaintiff has paid all the revenue taxes to the authorities. Plaintiff intended to construct a house on the suit schedule property, and on 30.06.2011, she approached the concerned officer for a grant of license, she had stored all the construction materials, at that time, the defendants, who have absolutely no right, title, or interest over the

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

suit schedule property, started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff being a lady, unable to resist the money and muscle power of the defendants, filed a suit for permanent injunction.

¶39

On summons being served, defendants

¶40

appeared before the Court and filed their statement, and based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues:

¶41

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is in actual lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?

¶42

2. Whether the plaintiff proved that, the alleged interference over the suit schedule property by the defendants?

¶43

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief as sought for?

¶44

4. What order or decree?

¶45

In order to substantiate the issues and establish

¶46

her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. The DW1

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

entered the witness box and got examined himself and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 in support of their case. Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court after consideration of the evidence and the records, did not find favour with the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶50

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in RA No.54/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura. In the first appellate Court, the defendants, on appearance, filed their statement and based on the records of the trial Court, the first appellate Court, upon re-appreciation and re-

¶51

consideration of the entire material on record, formulated the following points for consideration.

¶52

1. Whether the appellant proves that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record?

¶53

2. Whether the appellant proves that the judgment of the Trial Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case?

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

3. Whether the appellant has made out grounds to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court?

¶58

4. Whether the judgment of Trial Court calls for interference?

¶59

5. To what order or decree?

¶60

The first appellate Court, upon reconsideration

¶61

of all the materials, including the question of law, came to

¶62

the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the case and the trial Court has taken into consideration all

¶63

the materials and the contentions so put forth as well as the contentions of the defendants in the written statement and in the evidence, and once the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff and created a cloud or a dispute with regard to the title and also the possession of the plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have filed a suit for declaration, possession and injunction in order to remove the cloud on the title which was established by the defendants in their statement and in the evidence and came to the conclusion that a suit for bare relief of injunction could not be sustainable and therefore

¶64

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, confirming

¶67

the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is these judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that are put to challenge by the plaintiff in this second appeal.

¶68

It may not be necessary for this Court to restate the facts once again, as both the Courts have appreciated the facts and the question of law already before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.

¶69

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not appreciated the materials on record both oral and documentary, and the judgments rendered by both the Courts are erroneous and not sustainable. He further contends that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court failed to appreciate the claim of the plaintiff based on title deeds, the registered sale deed, the records from the panchayat, the khata that

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

is transferred to her name, and the tax receipts received

¶74

by the authorities, and without verifying and going through all these materials on record, have conveniently ignored these crucial aspects and have dismissed the suit mechanically without appreciating these aspects.

¶75

Further, it is contended by learned counsel for

¶76

the plaintiff that the claim of the plaintiff is based on the title deeds, though defendants contend that the documents produced by the plaintiff are concocted and does not automatically negate the claim of the plaintiff. It is for the defendants to prove their title by placing materials before the Court to sustain their defence. It is

¶77

also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that it is not necessary in all the suits for a permanent injunction that a relief of declaration is required to be sought. A suit for permanent injunction can lie by itself without seeking a relief of declaration or possession and the same is sustainable and both the Courts cannot hold that since the plaintiff has not sought

¶78

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

the relief of declaration and possession, a suit for

¶82

permanent injunction would not lie and succeed.

¶83

It is further contended that the plaintiff is in lawful peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and when such possession is interfered with or threatened by the defendants or the existence of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and a danger or injury is sought to be created or threatened by the defendants, the plaintiff has an inherent right to file a suit for injunction and protect his possession and right over the suit schedule property. This fact is conveniently ignored by both the Courts.

¶84

It is further contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that though the defendants contended that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of land bearing survey No.357, the same has not been proved as the defendants have not chosen to appoint any Court Commissioner to obtain the report in respect of the

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

possession of the property. It is also contended that the defendants have not questioned the title of the plaintiff and the possession of the plaintiff in any Court of law. That being the case, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have committed an error in dismissing the suit and not taking into consideration these crucial aspects. On these grounds, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that there is substantial question of law that requires to be framed in the present case on hand. The court would have to delve deeper into the case to ascertain the truth of the matter and the case made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court.

¶89

Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶90

1. Whether the plaintiff has made out a case for interference in the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court?

¶91

2. What order?

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the

¶96

plaintiff is for a permanent injunction of the suit schedule property which is a vacant land. The plaintiff is claimed to be the owner of the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed and to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff also stated that she has the revenue records in her name. The defendants on appearance have filed a detailed written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff and taken up the plea that the suit is not maintainable.

¶97

It is the specific case of the defendants that land bearing Survey No.357 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas was granted in the name of one Bettegowda S/o Narasimhegowda who is the father of defendants and that one acre of the land comes under the jurisdiction of the Grama thana. Hence, the Grama Thana acquired 1 acre land out of 2 acres 11 guntas in Sy No.357. The remaining portion fell into the share of the father of defendants, who

¶98

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further pleaded that after the death of the defendant's father, the property was mutated in the name of the defendants and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶101

It is contended that one Kempegowda and others have no right over the suit schedule property despite which they have executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff's husband has created concocted documents and registered the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff. It is a categorical statement made by the defendants that when the vendor of the plaintiff did not have the right to alienate the property, the question of plaintiff getting any right on the suit schedule property is out of the question and would have no bearing when the vendor himself did not have any right to transfer such property. It was also pleaded that a suit for bare injunction would not lie when the plaintiff's title was

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

vehemently denied and no documents were produced to substantiate how the title flowed to the plaintiff. The trial Court appreciated the evidence adduced by the plaintiff as well as the defendants and came to the conclusion on the basis of the materials placed on record that the Kempegowda did not have any right or title to sell the property to the plaintiff and that the suit schedule property comes within Survey No. 357 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas, which belongs to the defendants.

¶106

The trial Court has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anatulla Sudhakar V/s Bucchi Reddy and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2003 and came to a conclusion that when the defendant has denied the title and the possession of the plaintiff, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to have sought proper relief by way of amendment, which has not been done and the suit for injunction would not be sustainable. The trial Court further came to the conclusion that this plaintiff has failed to

¶107

14 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

prove lawful possession over the suit schedule property and that the case made out by the plaintiff is doubtful. When the case is not appreciated and is doubtful, the question of granting an injunction would not arise accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

¶111

The first appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record did not find favour with the plaintiff as there was no illegality or perversity or non consideration of the material evidence placed before the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Section 100 of CPC reads as follows.

¶112

[100. Second appeal. --(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

¶113

15 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.

¶117

(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

¶118

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.

¶119

(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:

¶120

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.]

¶121

In view of the provisions of Section 100 of the

¶122

CPC, the scope for interference in a second appeal becomes very narrow and limited. It is for the plaintiff to have made out a case before the trial Court and the first appellate Court, where he has not been successful. Both

¶123

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:13142 RSA No. 646 of 2025

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

the Courts have held in the negative. This Court is not

¶126

sitting in the appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence on record. Even if this Court were to be of another opinion than that of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, it cannot impose its opinion, as a question of fact has already been decided. The same cannot be appreciated in the second appeal. This Court does not find any good ground or cogent reason to appreciate the contention of the plaintiff to frame a substantial question

¶127

of law for consideration of this appeal once again. Under

¶128

the circumstances, I pass the following order.

¶129

ORDER

¶130

The appeal stands rejected.

¶131

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶132

RCK,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt T R Sujatha v. Sri Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T R Sujatha v. Sri Kumar

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

Abdul Rasheed Vs Um Projects LLP

Jagannatha Rao Vs K. Nanjaiah

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts (P) Ltd. Vs Mr. Niranjana K P

Sri. Sannaningappa Vs Sri. Mahadevappa

Kadaraiah Vs Sannachithaiah

Mrs. Savithramma D M Vs Mr. Ravikumar H K