Karnataka High Court

Sri.Nagasetty vs Sri.Ramasetty on 23 July, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:28034
                                                   RSA No. 2056 of 2013


              HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
                   REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2013 (INJ-)
              BETWEEN:

              1.       SRI.NAGASETTY
                       S/O DASASETTY
                       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

              2.       SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
                       W/O DASASETTY,
                       AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

              3.       SMT.GOWRAMMA
                       W/O NAGASETTY,
                       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by     4.       SRI DEVARAJA
SHILPABAI S            S/O NAGASETTY
Location:              AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF
              5.       SRI MANJA @ MANJUNATHA
KARNATAKA
                       S/O NAGASETTY,
                       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

                       SRI SHIVARAJA
                       S/O DASASETTY,
                       DEAD BY HIS LRS,

              6(A). SRI. HARISHA
                    S/O SHIVARAJA
                    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:28034
                                      RSA No. 2056 of 2013


HC-KAR




6(B). SRI SANTHOSHA
      S/O SHIVARAJA
      AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

7.       SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
         W/O SHIVARAJA
         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

         ALL ARE RESIDING AT THONDALU VILLAGE,
         KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

         SRI.RAMASETTY
         S/O SHANIVARASETTY,
         (ON 12.04.2019 DEAD BY HIS LRS)

1(A). SMT. SHARADAMMA,
      AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
      W/O LATE RAMASHETTY
      R/AT THONDAL VILLAGE
      KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR
      TALUK - 571 105.

1(B). SMT. LOKESHWARI,
      AGED BOUT 51 YEARS,
      W/O CHANDRASHETTY,
      D/O LATE RAMASHETTY,
      R/AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
      KAABA HOBLI, HUNSUR
      TALUK - 571 105.
                             -3-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:28034
                                    RSA No. 2056 of 2013


HC-KAR




1(C). SMT. SUVARNA,
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
      W/O DODDA SHTTY,
      D/O LATE RAMASHETTY,
      R/AT B.R. KAVAL VILLAGE,
      HANGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR
      TALUK - 571 105.

1(D). SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
      AGED BOUT 47 YEARS,
      W/O RAGAVENDRA
      D/O LATE RAMASHETTY,
      RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
      KASABA HONBLI, HUNSUR
      TALUK - 571 105.

1(E).    SRI. BALAKRISHNA
         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
         S/O LATE RAMASHETTY
         R/AT THONDAL VILLAGE,
         KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR
         TALUK - 571 105.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E))

     THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.1/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, HUNSUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE    THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2008
PASSED IN OS.NO.96/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC, HUNSUR.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
                               -4-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:28034
                                        RSA No. 2056 of 2013


HC-KAR




                      ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants

challenging the judgment and decree 26.10.2013, passed

in R.A.No.1/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Hunsur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to,

based on their rankings before the trial Court. The

appellants were the defendants and the respondent was

the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal

are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for

the relief of a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the

plaintiff that the suit schedule property was purchased by

him from his vendor, Sri T.S.Dasasetty and their sons, on

06.12.1978 for valuable consideration. On the basis of the

registered sale deed, the katha was transferred to the

name of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff is in absolute

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as

a lawful owner. The plaintiff is paying the tax to the

concerned department. It is contended that the

defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit

schedule property and are trying to interfere with the

plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit

schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendants

not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and

enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The

defendants have not given any heed to the request made

by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the

plaintiff to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly,

prays to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement

denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended

that the suit schedule property was acquired by the

defendants from their ancestors, and they are in

possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended

that the plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

in the suit schedule property. It is denied that the plaintiff

is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is contended

that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule

property for more than 100 years, and they have acquired

the title by way of adverse possession. It is contended that

the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence,

pray to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned

pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of this suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference of the defendants over the suit property?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled relief as sought for?

4) What order or decree?

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined

himself as PW.1, and 18 documents were marked as

Exs.P1 to P18. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined

as DW.1, examined 3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4 and 7

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D7. The trial Court,

after recording the evidence, hearing on both side, and

after assessing the oral and documentary evidence

answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative, and issue No.4

as per the final order and consequently, the suit of the

plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.10.2008.

3.4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the

suit in O.S.No.96/2007, preferred an appeal in

R.A.No.1/2009 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Hunsur. The First Appellate Court, after

hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the

following points for consideration:

1) Whether the plaintiff/appellant proves that as he is in lawful possession of the schedule property as the absolute owner there was interference from the side of the defendants?

2) Whether the interference in the impugned judgment is called for on account of it being capricious, perverse and illegal?

        3)    What order?

                                                NC: 2025:KHC:28034



HC-KAR

3.5. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties

and after reassessing the verbal and documentary

evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative

and point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was

allowed. The judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.96/2007 was set aside and consequently, the suit

of the plaintiff was decreed with cost and by means of

permanent injunction, the defendants or their authorized

persons were restrained from in any manner interfering

with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property.

3.6. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and

decree passed in R.A.No.1/2009, filed this Regular Second

Appeal.

4. This Court, on 04.09.2024, admitted the appeal

to consider the following substantial question of law :

1) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for perpetual

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

injunction without seeking the relief of declaration, when the defendants have disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court?

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that

the defendants have seriously disputed the title of the

plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He submits that

the defendants are in peaceful possession over the suit

schedule property for more than 12 years and they have

perfected their title by adverse possession. He submits

that the mere suit for perpetual injunction without seeking

a relief of declaration of title, is not maintainable.

7. To buttress his argument, he has placed a

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCCHIREDDY (DEAD)

BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. He

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

submits that there is a serious dispute about the title and

the said aspect was not properly reappreciated by the first

Appellate Court and committed an error in decreeing the

suit of the plaintiff. He submits that the judgment passed

by the first Appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and

erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the

appeal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff

supported the impugned judgments, and prays to dismiss

the appeal.

9. Perused the records, and considered the

submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

10. Reg. Substantial questions of law

No.1 and 2: Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are

interlinked and hence, discussed together to avoid the

repetition of facts.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

11. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction

claiming that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule

property from one T.S.Dasasetty under a registered sale

deed in 1978 and the name of the plaintiff was entered in

the revenue records and the plaintiff paid the tax of the

suit schedule property. The plaintiff, to substantiate his

case examined himself as PW.1, and he has reiterated the

plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and produced

the documents, marked as Ex.P1 is the original registered

sale deed, Ex.P2 is the mutation extract, which discloses

that based on Ex.P1, the name of the plaintiff was mutated

as per the order dated 23.07.2004, Exs.P3 and P4 are the

tax paid receipts, Ex.P5 is the copy of the complaint

wherein the plaintiff has lodged a complaint against the

defendants on 24.05.2007, Ex.P6 is the assessment

extract of the suit schedule property which discloses the

name of the plaintiff as a owner and possessor of the suit

schedule property, Ex.P7 is the endorsement issued by the

Tahsildar, Ex.P8 is the registered sale deed wherein the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

plaintiff had acquired the suit property under Ex.D8, Ex.P9

is the original mortgage deed, Exs.P10 to P17 are the

photographs, Ex.P18 is the statement of Narasimhaiah in

O.S.No.66/2004. During the course of cross-examination

of PW.1 it was denied that the defendant is in possession

of the suit schedule property.

12. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as

DW.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments

in the examination-in-chief, and he deposed that the

defendants had been in possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property for more than 100 years and

perfected their title by adverse possession. Further, to

prove the defence, the defendants have produced the

photographs marked as Exs.D1 and D2 are the photos,

Ex.D3 is the Himbaraha, Exs.D4 and D5 are the NCR,

Ex.D6 is the letter issued by the Gram Panchayath, Ex.D7

is the electoral list. Further, the defendants also examined

3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4. They have deposed that the

defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

schedule property, and they have denied that the plaintiff

is in possession of the suit schedule property.

13. From the perusal of the entire evidence on

record, there is no dispute that the plaintiff had acquired

the property under Exs.P1 and P8 i.e., the registered sale

deeds executed by T.S.Dasasetty.

14. From the perusal of the recitals of Exs.P1 and

P8, it is clear that the vendor of the plaintiff had delivered

the possession of the property purchased by the plaintiff

under Exs.P1 and P8. The defendants did not challenge the

registered sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff as

per Exs.P1 and P8. The defendants also did not challenge

the mutation order as per Ex.P2. The records produced by

the plaintiff disclose that the plaintiff is in possession of

the suit schedule property.

15. The defendants have denied the title of the

plaintiff over the suit schedule property and claimed the

title by adverse possession. By pleading adverse

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

possession, the defendants are indirectly admitted the title

of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When the

defendants indirectly admitted the title of the plaintiff over

the suit schedule property, hence, the question of seeking

relief of declaration of title would not arise. The first

Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record,

has rightly held that the plaintiff has proved the

possession over the suit schedule property and also by

producing Ex.P5 i.e., a copy of the complaint wherein the

plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendants alleging

that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiffs

peaceful possession over the suit schedule property,

proceed the interference by the defendants.

16. Learned counsel for the defendant placed a

reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCCHIREDDY (DEAD) BY

LRS AND OTHERS reported in AIR (2008) 4 SCC 594.

There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

17. Admittedly, in the instant case, the defendants

have pleaded in the written statement that they have

acquired the title by way of adverse possession. That itself

is sufficient to hold that the defendants have admitted the

title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When

the defendants have admitted the title of the suit schedule

property, the question of seeking relief of declaration of

title would not arise. The suit filed by the plaintiff for a

perpetual injunction is maintainable. The decision relied

upon by the learned counsel for the defendants is not

applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the impugned

judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, reversing

the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is just

and proper.

In view of the above discussion, I answer the

substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.

18. In view of the aforesaid facts, and

circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:28034

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

ii. The judgment and decree dated 26.10.2013, passed in R.A.No.1/2009 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur is hereby confirmed.