The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2019 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHENNASETTY S/O LATE HONNASETTY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT KOOTHAGANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117. (BY SRI. JAVEED .S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT KALAMMA W/O. LATE. MALLASETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SHIVANNA S/O. LATE. MALLASETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS …APPELLANT BOTH ARE R/AT KOOTHAGANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117. …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2018 IN R.A. No.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION 5014/2018 (OLD No. R.A.NO.16/2012 AND 53/2014) PASSED BY JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE IN JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2012 O.S.NO.402/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2018, passed in R.A.No.5014/2018 (old Nos.R.A.Nos.16/2012 and 53/2014) on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar (sitting at Kanakapura) and the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.402/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction, contending that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 15.04.1988 and the defendants are the strangers to the suit schedule property and have no manner of right, title, or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendants often tried to interfere and obstruct with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contended that on 02.09.2008, the defendants tried to trespass into the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendants filed a written statement contending that there was a partition between the plaintiff, defendant No.1’s husband and other family - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 members under a Panchayath Parikath dated 31.08.1988. In the said Panchayath Parikath, there was a partition between the plaintiff and his brother namely Mallashetty. It is contended that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property in his name, out of the joint family funds when he was in a joint family. The suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff, since, he was doing all the transaction of the family. In the said partition, suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the first defendant’s husband, and the name of the first defendant’s husband was
Legal Reasoning
entered in the revenue records. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. There is no cause of action to file a suit for permanent injunction. Hence, they pray to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the parties pleadings, framed the relevant issues. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 3.3. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to 3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 17 documents as Exs.D1 to 17. After recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and assessing the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.5014/2018 (old R.A.Nos.16/2012 and 53/2014). 3.4. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 02.06.2018. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, has filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants are the strangers to the plaintiff’s family, and they tried to obstruct the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property and tried to trespass on the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff has proved the possession over the suit schedule property by producing the documents. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the documents produced by the plaintiff. Hence, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 7. The plaintiff contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and produced 3 documents marked as Exs.P1 to 3. During the cross-examination, PW.1 clearly admitted the possession of the defendants over the suit schedule property. The said admission of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 the plaintiff is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff except producing the copy of registered sale deed, copies of the demand register extract and the paid receipts for 2007-08, has not produced any record to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. Considering the admission of PW.1 in the cross-examination that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and the documents produced by him, both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments. It is well settled that in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff has to establish that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and alleged interference. Admittedly, the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12541 RSA No. 249 of 2019 impugned judgments or any substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit if so advised. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS