Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jayanna vs Sri. Amase on 8 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
RSA No. 866 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.866 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYANNA,
S/O. LATE CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT C/O. SHIVANNA,
BAGIVALU VILLAGE,
HALEKOTE HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. AMASE,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M S/O.LATE SHETTY,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SMT. SAKAMMA,
W/O KUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
K.R. NAGARA TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025,
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
RSA No. 866 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARSIPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.297/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOLENARASIPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING 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 the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Though the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative that the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the defendants are interfering with his possession over the suit schedule properties, declined to grant the relief of injunction by answering issue No.3 in the negative and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal -3- NC: 2025:KHC:39661 RSA No. 866 of 2023 HC-KAR and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative that the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the Trial Court was justified in holding that the defendants are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property and the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, but answered point No.4 in the negative that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court not requires any interference and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
3. This Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, vide order dated 11.05.2023, framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have committed an error refusing to grant an order of injunction despite determining the factum of possession of the property by the plaintiff?"-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:39661 RSA No. 866 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit when the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession of the suit schedule property and ought not to have dismissed the suit. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts have failed to take note of the fact that till the plaintiff was evicted by due process of law, mere cancellation of the sale deed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act' for short) is not a ground to refuse the possessory relief sought by the plaintiff and admittedly the defendants have parted with the possession in the year 1990, while executing the general power of attorney dated 13.12.1990. The learned counsel contend that as against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner, writ petition is filed before this Court in W.P.No.7815/2024. The learned counsel submits that an order of status quo is passed in the said writ petition and hence it is very clear that possession is with the appellant and the relief is sought for the relief of permanent injunction. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:39661 RSA No. 866 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that W.P.No.7815/2024 may be called along with this second appeal. The learned counsel contend that when the sale has been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, mere pendency of the writ petition cannot be a ground to grant the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the appellant.
6. Having considered the grounds which have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and also taking note of the substantial question of law framed by this Court and also considering the material available on record, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that possession is with the appellant. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 not disputes the fact that no possession is delivered in favour of the respondents under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. The material available on record is very clear that an application is filed before the concerned authority, but not yet taken any decision to that effect. It is not in dispute that the defendants have filed the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5 before the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:39661 RSA No. 866 of 2023 HC-KAR Trial Court. The findings of both the Courts are very clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the property by answering issue Nos.1 and 2 by the Trial Court and point Nos.1 to 3 by the First Appellate Court, wherein it is categorically held that the appellant is in possession of the property. When such being the case, both the Courts ought to have granted the relief of injunction in favour of the appellant, but committed an error and hence the substantial question of law framed by this Court requires to be answered in the affirmative that the factum of possession lies with the appellant. However, it is made clear that if the appellant is unsuccessful in W.P.No.7815/2024 and if any process is taken before the concerned authority with regard to the delivery of possession in favour of the respondents, the order passed by this Court will not come in the way and the very ground urged by the appellant before this Court is that without due process of law, his possession cannot be disturbed. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that granting of relief of permanent injunction in favour of the appellant shall not come in the way of the respondents in taking the possession in favour of the respondents, subject to the result of the writ petition. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:39661 RSA No. 866 of 2023 HC-KAR Hence, by answering the substantial question of law framed by this Court in the affirmative, it is made clear that in case the appellant is unsuccessful before this Court in the writ petition, the granting of relief of permanent injunction by this Court will not come in the way of the respondents taking the possession in their favour and the same would be under due process of law.
7. With these observations, the second appeal is allowed by granting the relief of permanent injunction. The Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly in the line of above observation.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49