Karnataka High Court
Shri. Timmappa Govind Naik vs Shri. Narayan Parameshwar Naik on 23 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
RSA No. 100207 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100207 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SHRI TIMMAPPA GOVIND NAIK
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANDIGON VILLAGE-581334,
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI NARAYAN PARAMESHWAR NAIK
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC. NWKRTC EMPLOYEE (RETIRED),
R/O. BJATLA; DEKPOT,
NOW RESIDING AT ALIVEKODE-581334,
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
YASHAVANT 2. SMT. BALIYAMMA KOM MASTI MURKI
NARAYANKAR
AGE: 74 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
R/O. HANDIGON VILLAGE-581334,
Date: 2025.10.27
10:44:12 +0530
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTATA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
07.12.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUMTA,
IN R.A.NO.90/2007 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED IN O.S.NO.06/1998 DATED 10.08.2007, BY THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) AT KUMTA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
RSA No. 100207 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.6/1998 is before this Court questioning the correctness of the dismissal of the suit as well as the First Appeal.
3. The factual aspect relevant for disposal of this appeal is that the plaintiff/appellant contends to be the owner in possession of Survey No.130 measuring an extent of 11 gunta out of 2 acre 33 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1995 through GPA holder/Ganpathi Naik. It is his contention that the property was owned by one Shankar Purushottam Ankola. The plaintiff contended that as per the sale deed, M.E.No.4393 dated 10.10.1995 came to be effected and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit schedule property was adjacent to the remaining properties bearing Nos.129/1, 192/2, 128/2C and 128/2B belonging to the plaintiff. At the time of the court proceedings, defendant No.1, in collusion -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166 RSA No. 100207 of 2018 HC-KAR with defendant No.2, obstructed the plaintiff and therefore, there was a necessity for him to file the suit for injunction.
4. The defendants raised the contention that the claim of the plaintiff over his property on the basis of the sale deed executed by the GPA holder itself is fallacious and in fact the alleged GPA holder of Shankar Purushottam Ankola had died in the year 1976, and therefore, the alleged GPA, which was allegedly executed in the year 1994, is a fake and bogus one. Therefore, they contended that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to claim any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and as such his claim for injunction is not sustainable in law. On the basis of the above contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Trial Court and evidence was led. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief on the ground that the alleged claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property emanates from a sale deed, which in itself is non-est. The Trial Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 holds as below.
"36. It was the submission of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, one Sri. Shankar Purushottam, has executed a G.P.A. in favour of one Sri. Ganapati -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166 RSA No. 100207 of 2018 HC-KAR Jattappa Naik, as per Ex.P16. But, the very aspect of execution of the said G.P.A. ahs been denied and disputed by the Defendants as the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam, who is also called as Shankar Purushottam Ankola expired on 23-7-1976. In this regard, the 1st Defendant has produced the Certificate of Death as per Ex.D33. On consideration, the said G.P.A. came to be executed on 30-4-1994. In this regard, it was the submission of the learned defence Counsel, subsequent to the death of the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam Ankola, the Plaintiff in collusion with his relative by name Sri. Ganapati Jattappa Naik, has created the G.P.A. as well as the Sale Deed.
37. It is forthcoming in the cross-examination of PW-1, the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam, and the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam Ankola, are one and the same. In this regard, the learned defence Counsel has pointed out the relevant portion of the evidence of PW-
1. As a rebuttal, the Plaintiff has not produced any supporting documents to the effect, that the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam Ankola, expired only subsequent to 30-4-1994."
5. Thus, it is evident that the claim of the plaintiff based on the GPA as per Ex.P-16 was proved to be not maintainable in view of the death certificate as per Ex.D-33. On that count, the court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief unless he establishes his title to the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166 RSA No. 100207 of 2018 HC-KAR property. It is pertinent to note that the defence mentioned in detail in paragraphs No.8 and 10 of the judgment of the trial Court in following words:
"8. It is the defence, through a nearest relative by name Sri. Ganapati Jattappa Naik, the Plaintiff has got created a General Power of Attorney and on the basis he has got created a Sale Deed. It is also the defence, the said Sri, Shankar Purushottam Ankola, has not executed any G.P.A., in favour of the said Sri. Ganapati Jattappa Naik, as he expired during 1976 and that on 4-9-1995, he was not living. It is also the defence, after knowing the transfer of Revenue Entries, one Sri Suresh Shankar Ankola, made an application before the concerned authorities. The Defendant has denied and disputed the execution of the Sale Deed dtd., 4-9-1995. Accordingly, contended the Plaintiff has no manner of right, title, interest and possession in respect of the property.
10. It is their defence, neither the Plaintiff nor the said Sri. Shankar Ankola, never continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property and that the Plaintiff has no locus-standi to question the Phot Hissa before the Court. The Defendants have specifically denied the genuineness and the validity of the General Power of Attorney as well as the Registered Sale Deed Dtd., 4-9-1995. By denying all the other contention taken up in the plaint with specific -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166 RSA No. 100207 of 2018 HC-KAR defence and by relying upon necessary documents the Defendants prayed for DISMISSAL of the suit."
6. Thus, a suit for injunction simplicitor was not maintainable when the defendants have specifically denied the locus standi of the plaintiff. On the basis of such contentions, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction unless he establishes his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore, in that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises and as such the appeal is devoid of any merits and stands dismissed.
7. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23