T R NINGAPPA v. S R SRINIVAS

The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for the sake of brevity.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: It is the case of the plaintiff that he had filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration of ownership over the suit schedule properties and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 by name Ramaiah, during his lifetime, had formed a revenue layout in Survey No.195/3 in Bogadhi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru, and named the layout 'Jantha Nagar' and sold the sites to the public. One Smt.Jayamma and her son Sri.S.Sridhar are - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR purchasers of the sites, i.e., the suit schedule properties and were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties. Since there was a legal hindrance in registering the revenue layouts formed by private owners agricultural land, registration of the suit schedule property was not made.

5. Thereafter, Smt.Jayamma and S.Sridhar put up a small room measuring 10x15 feet in each of the suit schedule properties. Some of the revenue layouts came within the jurisdiction of the limits of Mysuru City Corporation, the Government of Karnataka meanwhile, decided to regularize the layouts formed in the agricultural lands. The Mysuru City Corporation conducted a spot inspection of the layouts, including the Jantha Nagar layout and found that the suit sites stand in the names of Smt.Jayamma and Sri.S.Sridhar and thereby issued house door numbers as 2000 and 2001 respectively, and also fixed the rate of tax at Rs.268/- by considering the renewal rental value of Rs.1,000/-. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR Thereafter, the Mysuru City Corporation has issued a 'Holders Katha' in favour of Smt.Jayamma and S.Sridhar.

6. By virtue of the introduction of the 'self- assessment scheme', the said Smt.Jayamma and Sri.S.Sridhar have declared and paid the tax for the period 2002 - 2003 to 2009 - 2010. The suit property was thereafter registered in the 'Property Tax Register' as per schedule IX of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,

1976. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit schedule properties from Smt.Jayamma and S.Sridhar by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2009 through a Special Power of Attorney holder Smt. Kanchana Srinivas and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After the purchase of the property, the plaintiff has given a requisition to the Mysuru City Corporation for the change of Khata to his name and the corporation has given an endorsement to that effect. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the purchase of the property on 05.11.2009, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 tried to trespass into the suit schedule property and interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties with an ulterior motive of making wrongful gain. Thereafter, on 15.12.2009, another attempt was made by the defendants to trespass into the suit schedule properties along with goonda elements. Plaintiff approached the police; he did not get any help and support, hence, plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.1984/2009 and had obtained an interim exparte temporary injunction against the defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that in view of the persistent disturbance by the defendants, a comprehensive O.S.No.713/2011 for declaration of title and for a temporary injunction. Upon the summons being served, the defendants appeared before the Court, filed the common written statement, and contested the matter. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR

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

1. Whether the plaintiff proves the the suit identity and description of schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties?

4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession over the suit schedule properties by the plaintiff?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

6. What Order or Decree?

9. In order to substantiate the issues and prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, another witness as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P37 whereas the defendant No.3 examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR

10. On the basis of materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court examined the issues framed and held them to be in the affirmative except for the relief of the declaration of ownership of the suit schedule property. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish title over the suit schedule property but, on the contrary, has proved his possession over the suit schedule property and hence dismissed the suit with regard to the declaratory relief of title over the suit schedule property. However, he was granted an order of permanent injunction for having proved his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and enjoyment of the same.

11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial judge, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in R.A.No.360/2019. Upon summons being served, respondent/plaintiff appeared and contested the matter. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR

12. The first appellate Court reconsidered the matter and had a re-look at the entire gamut of materials placed before it and before the trial Court, formulated the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction?

2. Whether interference of this Court in the impugned Judgment and Decree is warranted

3. What order?

13. The first appellate Court upon reconsidering the matter once again came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not challenged the issue of dismissal of the suit for grant of relief of declaration over the suit schedule property for the plaintiff to be the absolute owner. Considered only with respect to the challenge made by the defendants with regard to the permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the first appellate Court, after thoroughly going through the entire materials placed on record, came to the - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR conclusion that the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to Survey No.195/3, which was originally acquired by Ramaiah, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and was in possession of the same. Subsequently, the vendor of the plaintiff Sri.S.Sridhar, secured the property from Ramaiah and the plaintiff secured the property by way of registered sale deed from their vendor i.e., his vendor namely Smt.Jayamma and Sri.S.Sridhar for the suit schedule property by way of two registered sale deeds, and thereafter, the Government of Karnataka, having regularised the constructions of the suit schedule property allotted the 'Holders Katha' to the vendors of the plaintiff, and subsequently the tax has been paid by the plaintiff to the suit schedule properties.

14. The first appellate Court, upon perusal of the entire materials, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deeds dated 25.02.2009, which are Ex.P15 - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR and Ex.P16, and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the time of purchase. Though the plaintiff has failed to prove the title over the suit schedule property, he has succeeded in proving the possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly did not find any error committed by the trial Court in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree so far as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned.

15. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court with regard to the permanent injunction having been granted favour plaintiff, appellants/defendants preferred this second appeal on the following grounds.

16. It the vehement contention of appellants/defendants that the trial Court and the first - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR appellate Court have committed serious illegality and perversity in not considering the materials placed on the record and also the finding given by the trial Court in regard to the non-establishment of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, consequently, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants further contends that the trial Court ought to have appointed a Court Commissioner for identification of the suit schedule property, which has not been done and which has caused miscarriage of justice, and thereby it is a perversity in law. Learned counsel further contends that when the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to establish and prove his title and ownership of the suit schedule property, it ought not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction, as the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership and title. The question of law in the present case over the suit schedule - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR property will not arise, and the same ought to have been dismissed so far as with regard to the permanent injunction as well. Therefore, he contends that both the Courts have concurrently committed an error in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction despite coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to prove his title and ownership over the suit schedule property.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants also further contends that the vendor of the plaintiff primarily did not have a title or ownership over the suit schedule property to convey title by way of the registered sale deed to the plaintiff and therefore the question of the plaintiff getting any ownership or entering into the lawful possession of the schedule property has been conveniently ignored by both the Courts, which is an illegality and perversity and caused miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contends that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have not looked into the issue of exact location and identification of the - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR suit schedule property and therefore by virtue of this order of permanent injunction, the respondent/plaintiff are making all attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants/defendants in their property which is Survey No. 125/2.

19. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the property of the appellants/defendants is 60 X 120. The site formed in survey No.125/2, whereas the suit site in survey No.195/2 has different measurement and boundaries. The respondent/plaintiff has identified the property in survey No.125/2 to be his property and is making illegal attempts to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. On these grounds he seeks this Court to frame substantial questions of law as urged in the appeal memo for further consideration of the matter.

20. Per contra, learned counsel respondent/plaintiff vehemently contends that there is no - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR illegality and perversity in the judgment of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. It is a simple case that he had secured the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed from his vendors, namely Smt.Jayamma and Sri.S.Sridhar, by way of a registered sale deed and pursuant thereafter he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, having paid tax. It is also his contention that he is in peaceful possession, hence, he has filed a suit for declaration of his title and a permanent injunction. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that prior to the filing of the present suit, defendants had filed a suit for permanent injunction with respect to the property bearing survey No.125/2 as against the plaintiff herein, which came to be dismissed, and on the challenge made therein by the plaintiff before the first appellate Court, the same came to be dismissed. Therefore, it did not lie in the mouth of the appellants/defendants to contend that the respondent/plaintiff interfering with the peaceful - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR possession of the property of the appellants/defendants, as the said suit came to be dismissed and attained finality.

21. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the suit schedule property pertains to Survey No. 195/3, Site Nos. 37 and

38. It does not relate to survey No. 125/2. These two survey numbers are different. It is not the case of the appellants/defendants that he is the owner of the site Nos. 37 and 38 in survey Nos.195/3. But it is only the apprehension that in the guise of the permanent injunction in the suit schedule property, the plaintiff would interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants over his property i.e., survey No.125/2, which is in absolute ownership of the appellants/defendants. On these grounds, he submits that the plaintiff having produced the correct materials would show he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, despite the trial Court holding that he is not holding the title of the suit schedule property. He has gone - 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR into the suit schedule property by way of lawful document and hence his possession is lawful. Hence, the injunction granted against the defendants is correct and does not call for interference, much less the framing of substantial question of law for a delebration. On these grounds, he seeks rejection of the appeal.

22. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through Legal representatives V/s Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through Legal representatives and others reported in (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 128.

23. I have heard learned counsel appellants/defendants and learned counsel respondent/plaintiff. - 18 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR

24. The point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the judgment rendered by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court is illegal or perverse and whether any substantial questions of law are required to be framed for consideration."

25. It is not in dispute that originally the suit schedule properties were owned by the husband of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, and it is also not in dispute that the revenue sites were formed by Sri.Ramaiah, who was the erstwhile owner of the suit schedule properties, and in the course of such formation of sites, it appears that Sri.S.Sridhar and Smt.Jayamma are said to have purchased 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule property in site Nos. 37 and 38 from Sri.Ramaiah, and subsequently, the revenue sites were included by the Mysuru City Corporation and the sites were encroached upon by the Mysuru City Corporation, - 19 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR pursuant to which the Government of Karnataka decided to regularize the same. Unauthorised constructions belonging to the revenue sites were regularized, and the vendors of the native were allotted 'Holders katha' on the said sites and continued in possession of the same.

26. It is also not being disputed that the plaintiff has obtained a registered sale deed with regard to the suit schedule properties from the said 'Holders katha', namely Smt.Jayamma and Sri.S.Sridhar, by way of a registered sale deed as per Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 dated 25.02.2009. It is also submitted across the bar that prior to the filing of the suit in question, the defendants had filed suit against the plaintiff for the relief of a permanent injunction with regard to survey No. 125/2, which came to be dismissed, and the same is affirmed by the first appellate Court. Thereafter, when there was interference by the defendants with regard to the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, and were perforced to file a suit for injunction against the very same defendants that earlier order of litigation in O.S - 20 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR No.1984/2009 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), whereby an order of temporary injunction was granted, and thereafter, in view of persistent interference, the present suit came to be filed for a comprehensive relief of declaration of title and also for permanent injunction.

27. On the question posed by the Court as to whether the earlier suit of OS.No.1984/2009 was amended or came to a conclusion or withdrawn with liberty, the plaintiff and the defendants are unable to explain the circumstances of how it was disposed. Be that as it may, subsequent to the filing of the suit in question, it is apparently seen that the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with regard to the declaration of ownership of title. However, decreed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction by coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of his purchase from - 21 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR his vendors, Smt.Jayamma and Sri.S.Sridhar, by way of registered sale deed.

28. It is no doubt true that when the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction and the original owner of the suit schedule property succeeds in proving that the plaintiff who comes before the Court is unable to prove his ownership and title and the defendant proves his ownership and title, then the question of granting an injunction may not be appropriate. Learned counsel the appellants/defendants has rightfully relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through Legal representatives V/s Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through Legal representatives and others reported in (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 128 with regard to this legal aspect. - 22 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR

29. But the fact is that in the present case the plaintiff claimed that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. But, however, the trial Court though denied the ownership of title over the suit schedule property on the basis of his vendor not having a proper title but came to the conclusion that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and granted a decree of permanent injunction. These aspects have been carefully gone into by the trial Court and the first appellate Court by deciding the issue in question and have accordingly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff deserves an order of permanent injunction in his favour as he has proved his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court and the first appellate Court have also come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his title and ownership over the suit schedule property. Now the question is whether the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants will be applicable to the present facts of the case. - 23 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR

30. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants at paragraph Nos.18 and 19, the Apex Court has decided the issue in regard to when the injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession. In the present case on hand, it is not the case of the appellants/defendants that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. He claims ownership over survey No. 125/2 to the extent mentioned therein; he does not claim ownership over the suit schedule property on Survey No. 195/3 in site Nos.37 and 38 and it is categorically stated so. Therefore, the appellants are not claiming title and ownership over the suit schedule property, and the true owner of the suit schedule property has not come before the Court or made a party or made any claim over the suit schedule property. The order granting the injunction by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court cannot be held to be illegal or perverse. Under the circumstances, the trial - 24 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR Court and the first appellate court have decided the issue in question and have rightly come to the conclusion with regard to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and have decreed only with regard to the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

31. I am not convinced with the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that once the plaintiff was unable to prove his title over the suit schedule property, he would be automatically disentitled to an order of permanent injunction even if he is shown that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. I would like to add here that it is definitely open to the true owner, title holder and lawful owner of the suit schedule property to always file a suit against the respondents and seek necessary relief, if so advised subject to the law of limitation. Therefore, I do not find - 25 - NC: 2026:KHC:24427 RSA No. 46 of 2024 HC-KAR any good ground or cogent reasons to frame substantial questions of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER The appeal is dismissed at the initial stage of admission itself as no substantial questions of law exist for framing. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38