Karnataka High Court
Smt B Savitha vs Sri Kumar on 17 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
RSA No. 651 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.651 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. B. SAVITHA,
W/O SRI JAYARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571434.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KUMAR,
S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. SRI RAMACHANDRE GOWDA,
COURT OF S/O LATE SRI BETTE GOWDA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
3. SRI RAMANNA,
S/O LATE SRI BETTE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571434.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
RSA No. 651 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2025
PASSED IN RA NO.52/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.118/2012 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.
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.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that she had purchased the suit schedule property from one Kempegowda in the year 2009. Having purchased the property, she obtained the licence in terms of Ex.P.8 and constructed the house over the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments would contend that the documents at Exs.P.2 to 8 clearly discloses that tax assessment lists, house tax patta -3- NC: 2025:KHC:41513 RSA No. 651 of 2025 HC-KAR and receipt book and 3 tax paid receipts are produced and even inspite of all these documents are produced, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. The learned counsel submits that the documents, which have been produced by the defendants themselves i.e., Exs.D.2, 3 and 4 clearly discloses that an appeal is filed when the khatha was made in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of Ex.D.3. An endorsement was issued by the Grama Panchayath in terms of Ex.D.4 and endorsement in terms of Ex.D.5 dated 27.11.2013 and the said appeal was also dismissed. Inspite of those documents clearly establishes that challenge was made with regard to the khatha made in favour of the plaintiff, the Trial Court committed an error.
4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that when the plaintiff had purchased the property, the same is not an alienated property and the sale deed does not disclose anything about in which survey number the suit schedule property was carved out. An appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed and with regard to this, discussion was made in paragraph -4- NC: 2025:KHC:41513 RSA No. 651 of 2025 HC-KAR No.22. In paragraph No.23, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the document Ex.D.4 discloses that khatha Nos.445 and 446 stands in the name of Kempegowda, son of Kempegowda except the tax paid receipt, other documents are not available. Further endorsement dated 27.11.2023 got issued by PDO, T.S. Chathra Grama Panchayath, Pandavapura, which is marked as Ex.D.5, discloses that, not available survey numbers documents of Kerethonnur village. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that when the defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the very title of the vendor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit, since there is a serious dispute with regard to the title of the vendor of the plaintiff and also referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANATHULLA SUDHAKAR v. BUCCHI REDDY AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033, wherein the Apex Court made an observation that when there is a cloud on the title of the property, ought to have sought for the relief of declaration and hence dismissed the suit.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:41513 RSA No. 651 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.52/2022. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, in detail discussed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record as well as even considered the recitals of the document of sale deed and so also the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. In paragraph No.21, in detail discussed with regard to the extent of land in the said survey number and also taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 and the very plaintiff counsel put the suggestion to D.W.1 and the same is extracted in paragraph No.21.5. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.21.6, wherein discussion was made that D.W.1 has categorically admitted that he did not question the sale deed. Further, it is elicited in his cross-examination that the officials of T.S. Chathra Grama Panchayath have mutated the khatha in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of Ex.P.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that inspite of it, the First Appellate Court comes to a wrong conclusion that in order to substantiate the facts of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not produced any mother documents pertaining to the suit schedule -6- NC: 2025:KHC:41513 RSA No. 651 of 2025 HC-KAR property as narrated in the plaint as well as Ex.P.1 contents. Ex.P.1 contents are also taken note of by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.22 and the same also except disclosing that the vendor's property was an ancestral property, no details are given and elaborate discussion was made by the First Appellate Court having taken into consideration the documents of exhibit 'D' series and the plaintiff documents and when the plaintiff did not produce any khatha extract of his vendor and also the plaintiff, comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error. The First Appellate Court also taken note of where the complicated question of title involved would be examined only in a title suit for declaration and consequential relief and not in a suit for bare injunction and hence dismissed the appeal.
6. Having considered the reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and confirming the same and in a suit for injunction, cannot resolve the title dispute and only to take note of the documents, which have -7- NC: 2025:KHC:41513 RSA No. 651 of 2025 HC-KAR been produced before the Court as on the date of filing the suit, whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and whether there is an interference or dispossession by the defendant and same is not considered.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, when the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish her possession. In order to prove the factum of her possession is concerned, no documents of khatha extracts are produced before the Court either the khatha belongs to the vendor of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff except production of tax paid receipts. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the very title of the plaintiff and contended that the suit schedule property comes within the schedule property of the defendants and when such defence is taken and when the title is disputed, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that in view of the judgment of Anathulla Sudhakar case, when the cloud is on the title, ought to have sought for the relief of declaration and comprehensive suit is not filed and also when the possession is -8- NC: 2025:KHC:41513 RSA No. 651 of 2025 HC-KAR not established by the plaintiff, the same is considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in detail extracting the recitals of the document of Ex.P.1 sale deed, which the plaintiff relies upon. Nowhere in the sale deed, it is mentioned that the said property is carved out of particular survey number. On the other hand, the documents which have been produced by the defendants clearly discloses that the khatha stands in the name of defendants. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contend that Exs.D.4, 5 and 6 discloses that an endorsement is issued, but such endorsement will not create any right in favour of the plaintiff.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also brought to the notice of this Court Ex.D.3, proceedings in Appeal No.58/2010-11 and contend that the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. The same cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is important to note that when the plaintiff questioned the khatha standing in the name of the defendants by filing an appeal, the same was dismissed. When the challenge was made before the Deputy Director of Land -9- NC: 2025:KHC:41513 RSA No. 651 of 2025 HC-KAR Records by the plaintiff for fixation of hadhbasth, the same was also dismissed coming to the conclusion that the said sale deed made in favour of the plaintiff is not carved out of Sy.No.357 and this fact is also taken note of by the Trial Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law and there is no merit in the appeal.
9. 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.: 44