Karnataka High Court
Sri J Ramesh vs C H Haribabu on 22 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
RFA No. 1000 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. J.RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O SRI.D.JAGADESHWARA,
R/AT NO.135, 3RD CROSS,
JAYANTHINAGAR, HORAMAVU POST,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.SHRIHARI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
C.H.HARIBABU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O C.H.GANDHI,
R/A NO.33, 2ND BLOCK,
DASAPPA LAYOUT,
Digitally signed by RAMAMURTHYNAGAR,
PREMCHANDRA M R
BANGALORE - 560 016.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI.U.SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CPC.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
RFA No. 1000 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.K.Shrihari, counsel for the appellant and
Sri.U.Sivakumar, counsel for the respondent, have appeared in
person.
2. This is an appeal from the Court of VII Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19).
3. For convenience's sake, the status and ranking of
the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial
Court.
4. The plaint averments are stated as under:
It is stated that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in
possession of property, i.e., Site No.10 formed in Property
No.402, House List Katha No.185/249/1 situated at Kalkere
Village, K.R Pura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. It's a residential
site measuring East to West 40 Feet and North to South 30
Feet.
The suit schedule property originally belonged to One
K.S.Shankarappa. He executed a registered General Power of
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
Attorney dated August 22, 1994, in favor of Shanmugam. The
attorney executed a registered sale deed dated 24.02.1996 in
favor of Chandrashekar, who in turn executed a registered sale
deed on 27.07.2006 in favor of Narayanaswamy, who in turn
executed a registered sale deed on 11.09.2006 in favor of the
plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff derived a valid right, title and
interest over the suit schedule property. Ever since the date of
the purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The katha stands in
his name, and he has been paying taxes to the concerned
authority. Contending that the defendant tried to interfere with
the scheduled property and attempted to dispossess, the
plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of a permanent injunction.
After service of the suit summons, the defendant
appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement and
denied the plaint averments. He contended that he is the sole
and absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the
property bearing Site No.10, formed in property No.402, Katha
No.126/1, situated at Kalkere Village, K.R Pura Hobli, Bangalore
East Taluk, having purchased the same from the wife and
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
children of Late Shankarappa under a registered sale deed
dated 05.04.2006. He also contended that he is in possession
and enjoyment of the property by getting the katha mutated to
his name and paying taxes to the authority concerned. He
specifically contended that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
schedule property bearing No.10, which is formed in Property
No.439 and has H.L Katha No.185/249/1. Among other
grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, the
parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial
Court vide Judgment and decree dated 22.04.2016 dismissed
the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal under
Section 96 of CPC.
5. Sri.K.Shrihari., counsel for the appellant, submits
that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are opposed to
law and contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on
record.
Next, he submits that the Trial Court erred in holding that
the plaintiff has failed to establish his lawful possession and
enjoyment over the suit property.
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
A further submission is made that the Trial Court has
erred in not appreciating the material on record which
establishes that the plaintiff was the absolute owner in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the
defendant had no manner of right, title, interest or possession
over the suit schedule property.
Counsel vehemently contended that the Trial Court erred
in holding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the
property on the ground that there was a serious dispute about
the identity of the suit schedule property. It is also submitted
that the plaintiff had established that Shankarappa, the original
owner, had sold the property for valuable consideration in favor
of plaintiff's predecessor in title; hence, his wife and children
had no right to deal with the property.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is untenable in law and
the same is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits
that the appeal may be allowed.
In support of his arguments, counsel placed reliance on
the following decisions:
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
(1) SUBHAGA AND OTHERS VS. SHOBHA AND
OTHERS - (2006) 5 SCC 466.
(2) ERNATH VS. DIGAMEER - LAWS (KAR) - 1999 -
7 - 71.
(3) SHEODHYAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS.
MUSAMMAT SANICHARA KUER AND OTHERS -
1961 SCC ONLINE SC 164.
6. Counsel Sri.U.Shivakumar., for the respondent
justified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court.
Next, he submits that after the death of Shankarappa, his
wife and children sold the property in favor of the defendant on
05.04.2006.
A further submission is made that the property is
identified by description in the schedule. The description in
Ex.P.1 differs from Exs.P2 and P3. The Written statement was
filed in 2007. The defendant specifically contended that he
purchased Site No.10 in 2006. The Rectification deed was made
in 2009. Hence, the Rectification Deed is hit by Section 52 of
the T.P. Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
Counsel vehemently contended that there is a cloud on
the title of the plaintiff; hence, a suit for bare injunction is not
maintainable and placed reliance on ANATHULA SUDHAKAR
VS. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS - AIR
2008 SC 2033.
Lastly, he submits that the appellant has not made any
grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal
papers and the records with care.
8. The short point that requires consideration is
whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires
interference and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
a permanent injunction.
9. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require
reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the
plaintiff seeking the relief of an injunction. As could be seen
from the nature of the lis between the parties, the suit is one
for a bare injunction based on possession as of the date of filing
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
of the suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima facie
right. The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of
the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in
a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful
possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date
of filing of the suit.
The Trial Court holds that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner in possession of the property in question; however, it
erroneously concludes that a cloud cast on the title of the
plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession
over the suit schedule property. The approach of the Trial Court
is wrong. The reason is apparent. It is well settled that once the
plaintiff proves his prima-facie ownership and possession over
the suit schedule property as of the date of the filing of the
suit, he must succeed. In the present case, the plaintiff has
met with the criteria.
10. Lastly, counsel for the respondents vehemently
contended that the Rectification Deeds were executed in 2009,
i.e., during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff amended the
plaint to incorporate property No.402 in place of 439. The
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
action is hit by Section 52 of the T.P Act. He argued that the
sale deed dated 24.02.1996 is not rectified. Hence, the plaintiff
is not entitled to the relief.
Sri.K.Shrihari., has invited my attention to the recital in
the sale deeds and submitted that the boundaries are
specifically mentioned and there is no discrepancy.
The contentions are noted with care. There is no dispute
about the boundaries. I would observe that in the sale deeds
(Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3), the boundaries are specifically
stated and shown to identify the property. The area was
described and worded. Parties were not left in any doubt as to
the boundaries. Furthermore, in the power of attorney, there is
a clear mention about Site No.10 in Property No.402.
It is pivotal to note that the defendant did not put forth
any specific defence about the boundaries. I may venture to
say that it was a brief written statement and they referred only
to the fact that they had purchased the property under a
registered sale deed dated 05.04.2006. It is significant to note
that the plaintiff amended the property number; the defendant
neither objected nor contested the application. The Trial Court
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
vide Order dated 27.08.2010 allowed the application, and the
order allowing the amendment attained finality since the
defendant did not challenge it before the higher forum.
Furthermore, the defendant did not amend the written
statement. The original written statement was bald.
This is a matter which may be capable of a great deal of
exposition, but the case falls within a small compass. This is a
straightforward suit for a bare injunction and a review of the
material evidence on record indicates that there is no dispute
regarding the plaintiff's predecessors' title to the suit schedule
property, and as far as the change in the property number, the
Trial Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the property
number, and the order has attained finality. Hence, the
contention about delay in rectification and dispute on the
plaintiff's title over the suit property must necessarily fail. It
seems to me that learned Judge, for no particular reason,
created confusion regarding the issue and declined to grant the
relief. The confusion which, I may venture to think, has
sometimes crept into the cases is, in my view, due to a failure
to ascertain and understand the material propositions put forth
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
by the parties. I regard it as not merely erroneous in law, but
also, to adopt the language of CLAUSON, L.J., a shock to one's
sense of justice.
In the result, I think that the conclusion of the Trial Court
cannot be sustained. I think that the appeal should be allowed,
and that the plaintiff in the circumstances must succeed. There
is nothing much to discuss about the issue because the
pleadings are simple and the documents are minimal. The
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are liable to be set
aside.
11. The Judgment and Decree dated 22.04.2016 passed
by the Court of VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.No.995/2007 is set aside. The suit
is decreed. The defendant or anybody acting on his behalf are
hereby restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The
Registry concerned is hereby directed to draw the decree
accordingly.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27521
HC-KAR
12. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
