Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajeshwari vs Sri M S Veerupakshaiah on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
RSA No. 187 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.187 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJESHWARI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O T.S. RAJASHEKHAR,
R/O 4TH MAIN ROAD,
K.R. EXTENSION, TIPTUR,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M.S.VEERUPAKSHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O SHIVANNA,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M R/O BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.
KARNATAKA
2. DR. M. VEERARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
R/O GARDEN HOUSE,
HINDISKERE GATTE,
KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
RSA No. 187 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.80/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.241/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
3. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and the plaintiff has to establish his possession. The Trial Court while considering the admission on the part of D.W.1, comes to the conclusion that D.W.1 categorically admitted the possession of the plaintiff and the same is discussed in paragraph No.11. The only contention of the defendants was also taken note of that the original owner -3- NC: 2025:KHC:47697 RSA No. 187 of 2024 HC-KAR executed Ex.D.2 sale agreement in respect of the suit schedule property and by filing the suit for specific performance, the suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, the present suit is for the relief of bare injunction based on the possession and also even considered the documents Exs.P.1 to 10, which clearly discloses the exclusive lawful possession of the plaintiff and hence granted the relief of permanent injunction.
4. Being aggrieved by the said finding, an appeal is filed by defendant No.2 in R.A.No.80/2017. The First Appellate Court also having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and keeping in view the grounds, which have been urged in the appeal memo, taken note of the defence of defendant No.2 in paragraph No.22 with regard to the sale agreement executed in her favour in respect of the land measuring 10 guntas in the aforementioned survey numbers and he had not performed the agreement and therefore, she had also filed a suit for specific performance and the same was decreed as per Ex.D.1. However, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent -4- NC: 2025:KHC:47697 RSA No. 187 of 2024 HC-KAR injunction based on possession. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff coupled with the admission of defendant No.2 clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has established his possession over the suit property by producing both oral and documentary evidence and hence confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction and not exercised the power under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. The plaintiff totally failed to prove the possession and the First Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the entire material on record. The learned counsel would contend that both the Courts have acted without jurisdiction in granting the decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.2 notwithstanding the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff from the GPA holder of defendant No.1 is hit by doctrine of lis pendens -5- NC: 2025:KHC:47697 RSA No. 187 of 2024 HC-KAR embodied under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in a suit for bare injunction has taken note of the possession and the same has been admitted and the documents which have been produced also clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession and hence, rightly granted the relief of permanent injunction.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1, in a suit for bare injunction, it is settled law that the Court has to take note of whether the plaintiff establishes his possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, in detail discussed in paragraph No.11 that D.W.1 in the cross- examination categorically admitted the possession of the plaintiff. The Trial Court also taken note of the defence of defendant No.2 pertaining to the document of Ex.D.2 sale agreement and also taken note of when the suit is filed for the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47697 RSA No. 187 of 2024 HC-KAR relief of permanent injunction based on possession, the Court has to look into the documents and Exs.P.1 to 10 clearly discloses the exclusive lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also the defendant also admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and hence, granted the relief.
9. The First Appellate Court also re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record and taken note of the same in paragraph No.22 while discussing the case of the appellant that the present suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction based on possession. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff coupled with the admission of defendant No.2 clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has established his possession over the suit property and hence, confirmed the same. When both the Courts have taken note of oral and documentary evidence, especially the admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination admitting the possession of the plaintiff, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts have committed -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47697 RSA No. 187 of 2024 HC-KAR an error and also pressing of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not arise in a case of suit for bare injunction. Both the question of fact and question of law is considered by the Trial Court that the plaintiff has proved his case with regard to the possession as on the date of the suit considering the document Exs.P.1 to 10 and hence, not a case to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16