The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2020 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. K.RAVICHANDRAN S/O LATE SRI.KANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.36, 4TH CROSS MUNINANJAPPA GARDEN KAVAL BYRASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 032 2. SMT. THILAGA W/O SRI.T.SUNDARA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.32, NEW COLONY DODDANNA NAGAR KAVAL BYRASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 032 (BY SRI.C.PATTABI RAMAN, ADV.) AND: SMT. SARASWATHI W/O LATE SRI.RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.71, 2ND GM TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, MATADAHALLY R.T.NAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 032 (BY SRI. K. LAKSHMI KANTH, ADV.) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka … APPELLANTS …RESPONDENT THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.3815/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-33) DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT 1.
Legal Reasoning
This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants who are unsuccessful in the original suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction. The Trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2020 in O.S No.3815/2018 allowed the original suit directing the defendants that they are permanently restraining from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. The appellants herein were the defendants and the respondent herein was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.3815/2018. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The defendants are claimed to be the owners and in possession of the property bearing New BBMP No.34/1 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR PID No.95-173-34/1 situated at Kavalbyrasandra, Bangalore. It is further submitted that the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the said property and further she claims that she is in possession of the said property, as such she sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. 4. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence opined that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. Consequently, she has been successful in getting the order of decree by the Trial Court. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri.C.Pattabi Raman, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri. K. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the defendants that though the Trial Court had framed the additional issues however, the same have not been considered and not even discussed for its adjudication. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR Therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration on the additional issues. 7. It is further submitted that, the defendants after having purchased the said property obtained necessary electricity connection, water connection and also put up a shed on the vacant site, thereby they established the ownership and possession of the property. However, the Trial Court ignored in the evidence with the documents properly along with impugned judgment and decree which are required to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the property from its lawful owner. Since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The documents relating to katha and other documents standing in the name of the plaintiff. Even the Trial Court opined that the appellants herein being the defendants have not proved before the Trial - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR Court that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 9. It is further submitted that, the identity of the property of which the defendants were claimed are entirely different. Therefore, they cannot claim the property of the plaintiff that they were in possession of the property. In fact, the criminal case was registered against the defendants. The matter has been investigated and the charge sheet has been submitted. Now, the defendants are appearing before the Court to attend the criminal case for having committed the mischief on the property. Such being the fact, filing of this appeal claiming that the findings of the Trial Court is not proper cannot be sustained. Hence, the appeal has to be dismissed with cost. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Court below, the points which arise for my consideration are: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR i) Whether the plaintiff proved that she has been in possession of the property as on the filing of the suit? ii) Whether the plaintiff proved that the defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property? iii) Whether the defendants are proved that they are in possession of the suit schedule property prior to the plaintiff ? iv) What order? 11. Since this is the first appeal and this Court being first appellate Court empowered to deal with all the points for consideration as stated supra. Hence, the same are taken up for consideration. As such, it is necessary to consider the points in detail. 12. As regards point No.1 is concerned, the plaintiff is stated to have purchased the property from one Smt. Nyxrat Jahan through registered sale deed dateed 18.01.1993. The documents relating to katha and other relevant documents have been transferred to one Smt. Shivamma W/o Sri.Gangadhareshwara on 12.04.2004 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR through registered sale deed. The said Shivamma after having obtained the necessary documents relating to the suit schedule property from the concerned office and authorities, gifted the property in faovur of the plaintiff on 06.11.2006. The said gift has been registered before the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. As such, she acquired the property through gift from her mother. She further stated that the tax was being paid regularly to the concerned authorities as per Exs.P.5, 11 and 12-20. 13. In order to establish her possession in the suit schedule property, she produced several documents and tried to establish her possession over the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the defendants also claimed to be the owners of the property, they filed written statement contending interalia that they purchased the property from one Mr.Sundara Murthy represented by his GPA Holder-defendant No.2 vide its registered sale deed dated 09.08.2006. Further, they claim that since from the date of having registered sale deed, they are - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR in possession of the said property. In support of their contention, they produced the sale deed as per Ex.D.7. However, in the cross-examination of D.W.1, it appears that they are in possession of the property bearing site No.36, Assessment No.8/3, Katha No.322/356, situated at Kaval Byrasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west 52’ and north to south 30’. Whereas, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the property bearing new BBMP No. 34\1, PID No.95-173-34/1, formerly Southern half portion of BMP No.34, 4th cross, Muninanjappa Layout, Kavalbyrasandra, Ward No.95, Bangalore (Previously Site No.7 out of V.P.Katha No.154 House List Nos.6 and 7 situated at Kavalbyrasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli Bangalore North Taluk) measuring east to west:North side 41-06 feet, South Side:42-0 or (4)06+42+01/2 feet and north to south:40 feet, in all measuring 1670 sq. feet bounded on:- East by West by : : Private property, Road, North by : remaining portion of BBMP No.34 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR (formerly site No.6) South by : Site No.8 14. Having considered the difference between the claim made by the respective parties, it appears that the findings of the Trial Court in respect of possession appears to be appropriate and proper. Therefore, the said findings are justified. 15. As regards point No.2 is concerned, prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff had filed a case against the defendants before the jurisdictional police and the jurisdictional police registered a case in Cr.No.136/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 506 of IPC. Such being the fact, the plaintiff has proved that there is eminent threat or interference by the defendants to the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, point No.2 is justified and plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR 16. As regards, point No.3 is concerned, though the defendantsw challenged the validity of the findings of the Trial Court contending that the suit schedule property has been purchased by them through registered sale deed and the documents have been obtained from the competent Authority, the facts remain that in the schedule of the sale deed and also in the written statement, the schedule property appears to be different from the suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants had failed to establish that the property of which they purchased by the GPA Holder is one and the same as that of the plaintiff is claimed that she is an absolute owner of the property and she is in possession of the same. Hence, it cannot be said that, the findings of the Trial Court in respect of said issue that the defendants are not in possession of the property are appeared to be proper and relevant. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:18940 RFA No. 932 of 2020 HC-KAR 17. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is justified and therefore, I declined to interfere with the said findings. 18. In the light of the observations made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as under:- Point No.(i) - Affirmative; Point No.(ii) - Affirmative; Point No.(iii) – Negative; Point No.(iv) - As per the final order. 19. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed without any costs. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2