The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22844 RFA No. 954 of 2018 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 954 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE B.GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.13/65, 5TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, SUBBARAJU LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 030. (BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAM., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UDHAYA KUMAR.G & SRI. RAMESHA.M.N., ADVOCATES) AND: …APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
SMT. R.G.NAGARATHNA S/O M.BHAKTAVASTALAM, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, EAST CIRCLE ROAD, VISHWESHWARAPURAM, BANGALORE-04. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22844 RFA No. 954 of 2018 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Purushotham., counsel on behalf of Sri.Udhaya Kumar.G., for the appellant and Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of counsel for the respective parties it is heard. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-30). 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: It is stated that the defendant - Smt.R.G.Nagarathna is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is said that she entered into an agreement for sale in favor of one Mr.Veerappa on 13.08.1990. It is also averred that Mr.Veerappa agreed to sell a portion of the property in favor of plaintiff's husband Mr.B.Gopalaiah on 11.09.1992. The plaintiff contended that Mr.Veerappa put her husband in possession of the portion of the property. Because of the death of Gopalaiah - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22844 RFA No. 954 of 2018 HC-KAR on 17.07.2005, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction contending that there is an interference by the defendant. After the service of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. Among other grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence and got exhibited the documents. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2017 dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 5. Counsel Sri.Purushotham., for the appellant in presenting his arguments submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is contrary to law and opposed to the documentary evidence on record. Next, he submits that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff's husband in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22844 RFA No. 954 of 2018 HC-KAR O.S.No.4987/1993 and O.S.No.1971/2004 and they were dismissed. A further submission is made that Veerappa has formed residential layout in the said survey numbers and the Trial Court has failed to take note of the same and has erroneously dismissed the suit. Counsel vehemently contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider Ex.P.3 Agreement of sale executed by Veerappa in favor of Gopalaiah and delivered physical possession of the suit property. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is untenable in law and the same is liable to be set-aside. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed and the plaintiff's suit may be decreed. Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., for the respondent justified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. He submits that the Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly dismissed the suit. Counsel submits that the appellant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22844 RFA No. 954 of 2018 HC-KAR has not made any grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with care. 6. The short point that requires consideration is whether dismissal of the suit is just and proper. 7. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction. As could be seen from the nature of lis between the parties, the suit is one for a bare injunction based on possession as of the date of filing of the suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima-facie right. The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22844 RFA No. 954 of 2018 HC-KAR It is not in dispute that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, what is required to be considered is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as of the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff contended that one Veerappa entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property in favor of her husband. However, there is nothing on record to show that there is an agreement between the defendant and the said Veerappa. In the absence of the same, it is hard to believe that the plaintiff has been put in possession by Mr.Veerappa. Furthermore, the Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as of the date of filing of the suit. I find no merit to admit the appeal and interfere with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22844 RFA No. 954 of 2018 HC-KAR 8. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15