Shri Nagaraj vs Shri Shankar
2025 Latest Caselaw 1865 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shri Nagaraj vs Shri Shankar on 30 July, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:29321
                                                       RFA No. 566 of 2016


                HC-KAR


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
                                             BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2016 (INJ)
               BETWEEN:
               1.    SHRI NAGARAJ,
                     S/O LATE THIPPAIAH,
                     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                     RA/T NO.47, 7TH CROSS,
                     SIRSI ROAD, CHAMRAJAPET,
                     BANGALORE - 560 018.

                     SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
               1a.   SMT. VANAJA V.,
                     W/O LATE NAGARAJA,
                     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

               1b. SMT. YOGITHA,
                   D/O LATE NAGARAJA,
                   W/O VENUGOPAL,
                   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

               1c.   SMT. ARPITHA,
                     D/O LATE NAGARAJA,
                     W/O PRADHAN,
Digitally signed     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
by ANUSHA V
Location: High 1d. SRI N. TEJESH GANESH,
Court of           S/O LATE NAGARAJA,
Karnataka          AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

                     APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(d)
                     ALL ARE R/A NO.1233/26,
                     4TH MAIN ROAD, "E" BLOCK,
                     2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
                     BENGALURU - 560 010.
                                                              ...APPELLANTS
               (BY SRI T.M.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR LRs
                   OF DECEASED APPELLANT)
                                   -2-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:29321
                                                 RFA No. 566 of 2016


 HC-KAR


AND:
     SHRI SHANKAR,
     S/O C. RAMAKRISHNA,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.1189, 11TH A CROSS,
     7TH
         MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
     MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
     BANGALORE - 560 086.
                                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY MISS CHAITANYA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
         RFA FILED U/O 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT       AND    DECREE DATED      16.02.2016    PASSED   IN   O.S
NO.2377/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.10), DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.


         THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                            ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016

passed by XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru (CCH no.10), in O.S.no.2377/2008, this appeal is

filed.

2. Sri T.M. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for

appellant submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in suit filed for

permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering

with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit

NC: 2025:KHC:29321

HC-KAR

property namely Site no.66 formed in Sy.no.154 of Laggere

village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk

hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'.

3. It was submitted, in suit plaintiff had stated that he

was in possession and enjoyment of suit property having

purchased it under registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.1984.

Subsequently, he had obtained building plan/license and had

put up construction thereon. On 28.03.2008, defendant came

near suit property and sought to dig pits for construction. In

view of same, suit was filed.

4. On service of summons, defendant entered

appearance and filed written statement denying plaint

averments. Defendant specifically contended that defendant's

father C. Ramakrishna was absolute owner of suit property

having purchased it from one D. Raghavendra under registered

Sale Deed dated 06.10.1995. It was stated that plaintiff had

earlier filed O.S.no.8831/1995 against father of defendant i.e.

C. Ramakrishna. After his death during pendency of suit, it was

dismissed on 24.06.2004. Suppressing said fact, present suit

was filed.

NC: 2025:KHC:29321

HC-KAR

5. It was further stated that after death of

C. Ramakrishna, defendant along with his mother and sister

had succeeded to suit property. And under Release Deed dated

05.05.2007, defendant and his sister had relinquished their

rights in favour of their mother, who had thereafter executed

registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant, thus he had

become absolute owner of suit property and was in possession.

It was stated that plaintiff's claim about having purchased suit

property from GPA Holder of D. Raghavendra would not be

tenable as neither D. Raghavendra nor GPA Holder - Gundappa

had right to sell suit property to plaintiff and sought for

dismissal.

6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following:

ISSUES

1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference?

3) To what order?

7. In trial, plaintiff and Smt.Sumithra were examined

as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. On other

NC: 2025:KHC:29321

HC-KAR

hand, defendant examined himself as DW.1 and got marked

Exs.D1 to D9.

8. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1

and 2 in negative and issue no.3 by dismissing suit leading to

this appeal.

9. It was submitted, suit was dismissed without proper

evaluation of material on record namely registered sale deed,

building plan/license etc., which would not only establish

plaintiff's title, but also possession. It was submitted impugned

judgment was cryptic with observation that plaintiff ought to

have filed suit for declaration of title. It was submitted, said

observation was not justified and impugned judgment and

decree called for interference.

10. On other hand, Miss Chaitanya S.G., learned

counsel for defendant opposed appeal. It was submitted

present appeal would not be tenable in view of fact that

plaintiff/appellant had accepted decree and filed a

comprehensive suit in O.S.no.6702/2018 presently pending

before II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

NC: 2025:KHC:29321

HC-KAR

(CCH no.17), for declaration of title and permanent injunction

with respect to suit property and sought dismissal of appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

judgment and decree and record.

12. From above, point that would arise for

consideration:

"Whether judgment and decree passed by trial Court calls for interference?"

13. Perusal of impugned judgment would reveal only

reasoning to be contained in para no.12 is as follows:

"12. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P9 the sale deed of PW2 Sumithra. Ex.P9 evident that PW2 purchased site No.52 formed in Sy.No.154 from Achamma and A.Raghavendra through GPA Holder Gundappa on 06.09.1984. On going through the cross examination of PW2 her's evidence is not specific about the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. No doubt PW2 is the owner of site No.52 by virtue of Ex.P9 but Ex.P9 does not disclose the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore Ex.P9 and the oral evidence of PW2 will not help the case of the plaintiff. A perusal of documentary evidence Ex.D1 to D5 rebut the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff and emanates doubt about the plaintiff's possession over suit schedule property. The title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed. That being the case the plaintiff ought to have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of his

NC: 2025:KHC:29321

HC-KAR

title over the suit schedule property. Looking to the over all evidence the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property is doubtful. Thus the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit."

14. Trial Court after adverting to rival pleadings in brief

and referring to issues had also referred to oral/documentary

evidence. But, main reason for dismissal of suit was

defendant's rival claim for title in respect of suit property. And

coming to conclusion that plaintiff had to file comprehensive

suit for declaration of title in respect of suit property, suit was

dismissed. There is no detailed examination of material on

record insofar as possession over suit property.

15. At same time, filing of O.S.no.6702/2018

comprehensive suit for declaration of title etc. in respect of suit

property by present plaintiff against defendant is also not

disputed. If it is so, parties would be at liberty to agitate their

rights in respect of suit property in said suit and dismissal of

present suit which was only for injunction would not come in

way. In view of above, this Court would not require to give

findings on each issue dealt with by trial Court herein.

NC: 2025:KHC:29321

HC-KAR

16. Point for consideration is answered in negative.

Hence, following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is dismissed, confirming trial Court judgment and decree that plaintiff ought to have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title etc. in relation to suit property.

(ii) It is clarified that findings/observation by trial Court in present suit would not come in way of trial Court in O.S.no.6702/2018, deciding matter based on material placed by parties in said suit.

In view of dismissal of appeal, pending interlocutory

applications does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

GRD