Karnataka High Court
Smt. H A Prema vs Smt. Netravathi on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
RFA No. 836 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT.H.A.PREMA
W/O LATE H.C.SHEKARAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.140, II CROSS
NEAR MARIAMMA TEMPLE
HOODI VILLAGE
MAHADEVAPURA POST
BANGALORE - 560 048 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.NETRAVATHI
D/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY
W/O SRIRAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Digitally signed by R/AT NO.205, I CROSS
SREEDHARAN HOODI VILLAGE
BANGALORE SUSHMA
LAKSHMI MAHADEVAPURA POST
Location: High Court of BANGALORE - 560 048 ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI.GIRISH M.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.5306/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
RFA No. 836 of 2020
HC-KAR
BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO.25) DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant
being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
04.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.5306/2018 by the III
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-
25), wherein the Trial Court decreed the suit with cost.
2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as
per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience.
The factual matrix of the case are as under:
3. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction
against the appellant and her men, restraining them from
interfering with suit schedule properties bearing khata
No.6/4 in Hoodi village, measuring 84 feet x 13 feet and
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
HC-KAR
khata No.29 in Hoodi village measuring 84 feet x 30 feet,
both are situated in Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru.
4. The respondent being the plaintiff, is stated to be the
owner of the suit schedule properties and had acquired
the same under the Release Deed dated 07.11.2013 from
her mother. The appellant being the defendant in the
Trial Court, denied the said Release Deed and she
claimed to be the owner of the properties and demanding
the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the same to the
defendant. The cause of action arose on 01.07.2018.
Therefore, the respondent / plaintiff filed a suit seeking
for permanent injunction claiming that she is in
possession of the suit schedule properties. The Trial
Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful
possession and enjoyment over the Suit
Schedule Properties as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the unlawful
interference?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs as prayed?
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
HC-KAR
4. What Order or Decree?
5. The Trial Court after having considered the rival
contentions of both the parties, answered all the issues in
the 'affirmative' and granted the permanent injunction.
Hence, the defendant is before this Court seeking to set
aside the said judgment and decree.
6. Heard Sri Shankara, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Girish M.S., learned counsel for the respondent.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is
illegal, perverse and without any basis. Therefore, the
same is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that the claim of ownership by the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties is
severely disputed by the defendant and also the
existence of the suit schedule properties within the
described boundaries. Though, the plaintiff claimed that
she had acquired the suit schedule properties from her
mother under the relinquishment deed, however, she had
not produced any documents to prove that she had any
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
HC-KAR
subsisting right, title or interest over the schedule
properties along with her mother. Further, no
documentary evidence has been produced to establish
that she is the daughter of Smt. Chandramma, who is
alleged to be the mother of the plaintiff.
9. It is further submitted that the disputed properties are
situated in two different places, however, a single khata
is produced which creates doubt. The plaintiff has
admitted that, the defendant is in possession of 13 feet x
99 feet in Item No.1 and 8¼ feet x 99 feet in item No.2
of the suit schedule properties along with a four-storied
building in Item No.2. Further, when the plaintiff has
admitted that, the defendant is in possession and
enjoyment of suit schedule properties, injunction ought
not to have been granted in respect of the suit schedule
properties. Making such submissions, learned counsel for
the appellant prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent /
plaintiff admitted that, since it is a vacant land, she has
produced certified copies of the partition deed dated
30.09.1955 - Ex.P2, release deed dated 07.11.2013 and
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
HC-KAR
some documents relating to the construction of four
square Mangalore tiles roof in the khata No.29 in Item
No.2 property. Ex.P4 is the property register of the suit
schedule No.1 properties bearing khata No.6/4.
11. It is further submitted that these documents would
indicate that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and
also got the electric connection to the said house. Since
all the documents would indicate that the plaintiff is in
possession of the property, the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court is absolute and appropriate.
There is no reason to interfere with the said findings.
Making such submissions, learned counsel for the
respondent prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, in a suit
for bare injunction, possession of the property assumes
greater significance. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner
of the properties, made available certain documents to
demonstrate the ownership and possession of the
property. The defendant filed the written statement
denying possession and cause of action and she also
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
HC-KAR
claimed that the suit is barred by limitation. Further, the
defendant contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to the
defendant and the alleged interference in the suit
schedule properties is made for the purpose of filing the
false suit.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, the following points which would arise for my
consideration are:
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is a
lawful owner of the suit schedule properties as
on the date of filing of the suit and also further
proves that, the defendant is interfering with
the possession?
(ii) Whether the findings of the Trial Court in
granting the decree are justified?
(iii) What Order?
14. As regards point No.(i) is concerned, the plaintiff has
produced khata certificates of the property and was
paying tax to the BBMP in respect of the suit schedule
properties. The plaintiff has also produced electric
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
HC-KAR
connection bills and also encumbrance certificate up-to-
date. The plaintiff also obtained loan from the private
financial institutions by pledging the original documents
and constructed the structure thereon.
15. Having considered the documents available on record and
also the evidence adduced by the respective parties, I am
of the considered opinion that, the point No.(i) has to be
answered in the 'affirmative'.
16. As regards point No.(ii) is concerned, since I answered
point No.(i) in the affirmative, the justification of the
findings of the Trial Court is relentlessly followed.
Therefore, point No.(ii) also has to be answered in the
'affirmative'.
17. In the light of the observations made above, the points
which arose for my consideration are answered as:
Point No.(i) in the "affirmative"
Point No.(ii) in the "affirmative"
NC: 2025:KHC:28321
HC-KAR
18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Regular First Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
04.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.5306/2018 by the III
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore
(CCH-25), is confirmed.
(iii) No order as to cost.
(iv) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court
Records forthwith.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS
