[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri B Venkatesh vs Chikkanarasimhaiah on 8 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51630
RSA No. 116 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.116 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B. VENKATESH
S/O LATE BANGONU (BANGYAPPA)
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT: DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE NAKAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. NARAYANSWAMY
COURT OF S/O LATE NAKKAPPA
KARNATAKA
BOTH RESIDING AT:
DEVASTHANADA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51630
RSA No. 116 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 42 READ WITH
SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.17/2020 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2019
PASSED IN OS NO.631/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR.
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. I have heard learned
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
2. This second appeal is filed against concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent
injunction in O.S.No.631/2011, wherein prayer is sought to
grant the relief of permanent injunction. It is the pleadings of
the plaintiff that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:51630
HC-KAR
and there is an interference by the defendants. Hence, he filed
the suit.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement disputing the very claim of the plaintiff. The
contention of the plaintiff is that property was granted in favour
of his father Bangonu and defendants claim that their fathers'
name is also Bangonu @ Nakkappa and both of them are
claiming title in respect of the very same suit schedule
property.
5. The Trial Court considering the material available on
record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and observation is
made with regard to the grant is concerned and also there is a
dispute between the parties regarding revenue entries and
revenue appeal is also pending before the Court and ultimately,
the revenue appeal was allowed and granted the relief in favour
of the respondents herein in 2016 during the pendency of the
suit.
6. The order of dismissal in O.S.No.631/2011 was
challenged in R.A.No.17/2020. The First Appellate Court also
NC: 2025:KHC:51630
HC-KAR
having reassessed the material available on record, dismissed
the appeal and there is a concurrent finding. Both the Courts
have taken note of the fact that there is a dispute with regard
to the title and there is a cloud on the title and the
appellant/plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for the relief of
declaration. Having considered the reasoning of the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any error on the
part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and when
there is a dispute with regard to the title and there is a cloud
on the title, ought to have filed the suit for the relief of
declaration as held by the Apex Court in the case of
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY
L.RS. AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594.
7. I have already pointed out that with regard to the
original grant is concerned, plaintiff claims that his father name
is Bangonu and defendants also claim that their father name is
also Bangonu @ Nakkappa. When there exists dispute with
regard to the title is concerned, filing the suit for the
comprehensive relief of declaration is the solution to the
parties. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the appellant to file a
NC: 2025:KHC:51630
HC-KAR
suit for the comprehensive relief of declaration and liberty is
given to file the same.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
also filed additional documents along with an application and
the same is resisted by the respondents by filing statement of
objections. Having perused those documents, the documents
are School Admission Certificate, caste certificate, residential
certificate, ration card and voter list, wherein the name of the
appellant is referred in the public documents. Hence, the
appellant is given permission to take back these documents
and rely upon the same in the suit to be filed for the relief of
declaration. The contention with regard to title is kept open and
the same is to be decided by the Trial Court in a comprehensive
suit for the relief of declaration. The observations, if any made
by the Trial Court while disposing of the suit and also the First
Appellate Court with regard to the title is concerned shall not
come in the way of considering the suit, if any filed for the
relief of declaration and the scope of suit for relief of
permanent injunction is very limited and the Court can only
examine as on the date of filing of the suit, who was in
NC: 2025:KHC:51630
HC-KAR
possession of the property and the same ought to have been
considered by both the Courts and no other issue other than
the issue of title is concerned.
With these observations, the second appeal stands
disposed of with liberty to file a comprehensive suit for the
relief of declaration.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
