Karnataka High Court
Neelavathi vs District Commissioner on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
RSA No. 1025 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1025 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
NEELAVATHI
D/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O CHANNAPATNA
HASSAN - 573 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 102
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
2. THE TAHSILDAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HASSAN TALUK
KARNATAKA HASSAN - 573 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.H, AGA)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.08.2022
PASSED IN RA NO.40/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
RSA No. 1025 of 2023
HC-KAR
DATED 24.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.542/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASAN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The appeal is listed for admission.
3. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit shall property. It is contented that suit sale property originally belongs to government and one Veeranna, son of Rachatappa, purchased the suit schedule property in public auction on 27.06.1983 for a consideration of Rs.200/- to an extent of 30 x 40 feet, bearing Site No. 574/1 through sale deed from Channapatna Grama Panchayath. Later, he sold the house to plaintiff Neelavathi through registered sale deed dated 14.08.2003 for a consideration of Rs.2,02,000/-. The extent of the house is 20x30 feet. Remaining measurement of the site is -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44835 RSA No. 1025 of 2023 HC-KAR 30x20 feet out of 30x40 feet. It is also known to the defendants that Mandal Panchayat sold in public auction. Social property is purchased from Mandal Panchayat. Defendants have no authority to interfere in the suit schedule property.
4. The defendants appeared and filed written statement that is defendant No.2 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendants denied the entire averment of plaint even including the denying of the title and the defendants contend that Grama Panchayath has no authority to auction the suit schedule property and permission of Deputy Commissioner was necessary for government land for disposing the same and grama panchayat has not taken any such permission and also the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property; Government is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also contented that it is not within the knowledge of the defendants that public auction was conducted. It is the duty of the government to protect the government land for the public purpose.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44835 RSA No. 1025 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and that marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and defendants have not led any evidence. However, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not proved the possession and also made an observation in the order that when there is a dispute with regard to the title is concerned and when the title is in dispute or under cloud, question of granting the exemption does not arise and hence, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit an appeal is filed in R.A.No.40 of 2019 and appellate court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove his possession as well as interference by the defendant and also considering the judgment in the case of T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VERSUS MALLAPPA AND ANOTHER1 and also the judgment reported in JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD VS. DIDAR SINGH2, in para 26 made an observation that on perusal of the dictum laid on in the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that where plaintiff's title is 1 2021 (5) KCCR 1 (SC) 2 (2019) 17 SCC 692 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44835 RSA No. 1025 of 2023 HC-KAR in dispute or under a cloud, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit simplicitor for the relief of permanent injunction.
6. In the instant case, defendant has categorically denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and stated that plaintiff is in unlawful possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, though the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit schedule property, his possession being unlawful is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction and answered the point as negative.
7. Having considered the reasoning given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court learned counsel would vehemently contend in his argument in second appeal that both the courts have committed an error when the plaintiff has established the possession and ought not to have dismissed the suit and ought not to have confirmed by the appellant Court and hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantive question of law.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State would vehemently contend that when the defendants have filed -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44835 RSA No. 1025 of 2023 HC-KAR the written statement and disputed the title and contend that the Grama Panchayath had no any right to dispose of the property, the very title is disputed and hence, both the courts have taken note of the same and dismissed the suit as well as appeal.
9. Having heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the pleadings of the plaintiff, plaintiff claims that property originally belongs to the government and the same was auctioned and vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the same and the same is disputed by the defendant by filing statement contending that the property belongs to the government and Grama Panchayath was not having any authority to sell the property without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner and title is also disputed. When there is a cloud on the title, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Ananthula Sudhakar as well as the judgment which have been referred by the appellate court referred supra, the plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of comprehensive relief of declaration and the same is not sought and hence, I do not find any ground to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44835 RSA No. 1025 of 2023 HC-KAR admit and frame substantive question of law. However, the appellant is given liberty to seek appropriate relief of comprehensive relief of declaration.
With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46