Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra Devadiga vs Smt Bhanumathi S Shetty on 13 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46391
RSA No. 1400 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1400 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA DEVADIGA
S/O NARAYANA DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
MALAGADDE MANE
KANCHIKAN, BIJOOR VILLAGE
UDUPI DISTRICT-576232.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BHANUMATHI S SHETTY
D/O SHESHU SHETTY
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
by DEVIKA M HOTLABAIL, VADERHOBLI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH KUNDAPURA TOWN AND POST
COURT OF UDUPI DISTRICT-576201.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.06.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.276/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46391
RSA No. 1400 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This matter is listed for admission. The present second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is in actual and lawful possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property and it is pleaded that she is an absolute owner and in possession of suit 'A' schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 19.09.2005 and the same was purchased from one Shantamma through her GPA Holder. Despite order of Assistant Commissioner, the RTC of the suit 'A' schedule property and other properties were not mutated in the name of Shantamma at the time of sale deed. All these -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR facts were within the knowledge of Shantamma. After purchase of land in Sy.No.24/13 measuring 0.86 acre, out of it, she executed a gift deed dated 22.09.2005 in favour of the Secretary of Aluru Grama Panchayath to an extent of 0.5 acre. The remaining portion is suit 'A' schedule property. Thereafter, the said Shanthamma got mutation in her name in RTC. By coming to know the fact of this, she applied for change of RTC in her name which is pending for disposal. It is contended that one Smt.Anita.K. Adhyanthaya made an attempt to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property and she also filed a suit in O.S.No.287/2012 against the said Smt.Anita.K.Adhyantaya and vendor Smt.Shanthamma for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed on 19.01.2013. On 01.09.2014, the defendant along with his men made an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property and tried to dig the suit property for removing laterite stones thereon. Immediately, she and herself rushed to the spot -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR and registered the same and that time defendant proclaimed that he purchased the suit schedule property from Anitha.K.Adhyanthaya for valid consideration and RTC stands in his name. She came to know about the said Anitha.K.Adhyanthaya and the defendant were joined together and created a fraudulent and fictitious sale deed with an intention to cheat her and hence, filed a suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that property was purchased and also all details were given with regard to the claim made by the plaintiff contend that the plaintiff has to prove the Will dated 30.04.1985 and also the power of attorney holder was none other than the husband of the plaintiff by name Mr.Sachidananda Shetty. Shanthamma was not aware about the said power of attorney and all these factors are raised in the suit for permanent injunction.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Having taken note of material available on record, comes to the conclusion that there was already a judgment and decree in O.S.No.287/2012. Thereafter, the subsequent sale deed came into existence in 2014 and also the decree was passed prior to the sale deed. All these factors were taken note of in paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19 and also an observation is made that it clearly established that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from one Shanthamma through the GPA holder.
4. The learned counsel has relied upon the genuineness of GPA dated 04.01.2002 and sale deed dated 19.09.2005 and Ex.P.7 is certified copy of the settlement executed by A.Shantha in favour of her son Guruprasad, wherein it discloses that the said Shanthamma had settled her all properties in favour of her son Guruprasad, except suit 'A' schedule property. All these factors were taken -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR note of and hence not accepted the case of defendant and granted the relief as sought.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.10/2022. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the sale deed executed on 19.09.2005 by GPA holder of Smt.Shanthamma and she was a party in O.S.No.287/2012, which is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from that the vendor of the plaintiff one Anitha K. Adhyanthaya was also a party to the said O.S.No.287/2012. Whether the said judgment and decree passed under ex-parte or otherwise. But, having comes to know about the said O.S.No.287/2012, there was a decree either the Smt.Shanthamma, vendor of Smt.Anitha K. Adhyanthaya taken any action of set-aside the above said judgment and the same has attained its finality. Whether there is a variation in extent or not is totally immaterial to claim that the defendant has acquired right over suit schedule property and hence, confirmed the judgment.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court made an observation with regard to the very title of the appellant is concerned and ought to have taken only the right of the plaintiff and ought not to made any comment on the same and also counsel would vehemently contend that First Appellate Court passed a cryptic order and not exercised the power under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when already there was a judgment and decree of permanent injunction and ought not to have filed one more suit for bear injunction and all these factors are not taken note of by both the Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantive question of law.
7. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of conduct of the parties. When they have already suffered an order of permanent injunction and both of them have indulged in creation of document and -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR the document came into existence in 2014 after the judgment and decree passed. The Trial Court also taken note of the possession is concerned and rightly granted the relief of permanent injunction and it does not require any interference.
8. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the material on record, suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and particularly taking into note of the sale deed which was executed by power of attorney holder of Shanthamma, plaintiff claims the right as well as possession in respect of the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that both the Shanthamma and also the vendor of the plaintiff have suffered the earlier judgment and decree in the earlier suit is also not in dispute and also subsequently document came into existence and all these factors were taken note of. When there was already an order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently sale deed came into -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR existence and no doubt there is a force in the contention of the appellant counsel that when a suit for bear injunction, only Court has to examine the possession and not on the validity of the title is concerned. But, when the plaintiff was having the judgment and decree and the same was not questioned by either of the parties, but executed the document of sale deed dated 30.03.2014 and to that effect the Appellate Court also discussed the same. No doubt, no detailed discussion as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. But, here is the case of bare injunction only Court has to take note of the possession of the parties. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. However, liberty is given to the appellant to file a comprehensive suit.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Second Appeal is dismissed with liberty to file the suit for comprehensive relief.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46391 RSA No. 1400 of 2024 HC-KAR
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46