Karnataka High Court
Sri V Chandrashekaraiah vs Sri Shivarudraiah on 2 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
RSA No. 711 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2022 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOLUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK - 562 120
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMEER S N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI SHIVARUDRAIAH
S/O LATE VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
2. SRI R V SADASHIVAIAH
S/O LATE VEERANNA,
ABATED ON 07-04-2004
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
RSA No. 711 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SRI V. SHADAKSHARAPPA
S/O LATE VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE
SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK - 562 120
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
SMT PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE VEERANNA,
DECEASED BY HER LR - R4
4. SMT LALITHAMMA
W/O PUTTAREVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT HONNANARAYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 120,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2022 PASSED IN RA
NO.239/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, MAGADI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2013 PASSED IN OS
NO.102/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MAGADI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
RSA No. 711 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property in terms
of document Ex.P1 and consequently, the mutation - Ex.P2
came into existence as well as Ex.P17 and also RTC stands in
the name of the plaintiff in terms of Exs.P3 to P8 and Exs.P13
to P16 and sought for the relief of permanent injunction.
Defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement before
the Trial Court disputing the document of Ex.P1 and also the
revenue document and apart from that also, he has filed an
appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara and
the same also dismissed vide order dated 01.07.1999. The
plaintiff relies upon the documents which have been placed on
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
HC-KAR
record i.e., Ex.P1 to P17 and the Trial Court also having
considered the material on record, the 4th defendant being the
family member of plaintiff and other defendants has gone to
the extent of denying that the plaintiff is his mother and has
also gone to the extent of filing an affidavit to the effect that
his father Late. Veeranna had an illegitimate relationship with
Puttamma and the same is discussed in paragraph No.33 and
also in paragraph No.35 also taken note of the defence of the
defendant and he claims that he has been in possession of the
property as on the date of filing of the suit but not placed any
documentary proof with regard to his possession is concerned
and hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff relying upon documents of Exs.P1, P2 and P17 and RTC
extract - Exs.P3 to P8 and P13 to P16. The same is challenged
before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having
considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated
the point that whether plaintiff No.1 proved her possession over
the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit
and whether it requires interference of this Court?. The
Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available
on record particularly documentary evidence which have been
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
HC-KAR
placed on record and also taken note of the document which
have been produced by the defendant i.e., appellant Ex.D1 -
RTC extract in respect of item No.1 for the year 1989 to 1993
and it shows the name of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as per
MR No.6/1983-84 and also MR No.4/1985-86 and partition in
column No.(9) and the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in
column No.12(2). Exs.P3, P4 and P5 are the RTC extracts in
respect of item No.1 of suit schedule properties showing the
name of plaintiff for item No.1 as per MR No.7/1995-96 and
also the names of defendant Nos.1 to 4 for the remaining
extent as per the partition in MR No.5/1983-84. The Appellate
Court having taken note of these documents and also
reappraised both oral and documentary evidence and also
taken note of Ex.P11 is the registered deed dated 13.07.1999
and it recites that the plaintiff mortgaged the suit schedule
property in favour of Sri Siddashivacharya Swamy Gavi Mutt for
Rs.15,000/- by delivering the possession for 25 years and
within the said period, this mortgage deed is to be taken back
by paying mortgage amount. Ex.P12 is the redemption of
mortgage deed dated 09.06.2004 and it recites that the
plaintiff redeemed the said mortgage. Having taken note of all
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
HC-KAR
these documents in paragraph No.26 in detail discussed that an
application was filed under Order 26 Rule 10(a) read with
Section 75(E) of CPC and the said application was dismissed.
An attempt was made by the defendant before the Trial Court
to send the document of Ex.P1 for handwriting expert and
same was dismissed on 14.09.2012 and suit was decreed on
26.10.2013 after almost one year and defendant No.4 has not
challenged the said dismissal order. Moreover, in the absence
of Ex.P1 also the other documents are taken note of and other
documents also clearly discloses that plaintiff is in possession of
the suit schedule property and confirm the judgement of the
Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that as on the date of
filing of the suit, Court has to take note of who has been in
possession of the property. Being aggrieved by the said
concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before
this Court.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that document of Ex.P1 is
disputed and also an application was filed to send the same to
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
HC-KAR
the handwriting expert and the same was dismissed and the
learned counsel also would contend that Ex.D1 doesn't confirm
to the date of document, the ownership or possession and the
learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the other
documents which have been placed before the Court also not
confirm any right in favour of the plaintiff and fails to take note
of the document Ex.P1 and cannot be looked into and the
learned counsel also would contend that this Court has to frame
substantial question of law that as per Section 49(c) of the
Registration Act, the document doesn't confirm any right in
favour of the plaintiff and also would contend that defendant
No.4 questioned Ex.P1 and the same was not taken note of and
Appellate court also committed an error in holding that
Ex.P11 - registered mortgage deed and Ex.P12 - redemption of
mortgage deed executed subsequent to the filing of the suit
and considering the same, confirmed the judgement of Trial
Court and hence, this Court has to frame substantial question
of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
HC-KAR
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also considering the material on record and suit
is filed only for bare injunction. The issue between the parties is
with regard to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The
plaintiff mainly relies upon the document of family arrangement
dated 20.04.1974 and also the Panchayath Arrangement
document dated 20.12.1974 and it is also important to note
that in order to prove the factum of possession, mainly relies
open the document of mutation extract Exs.P2 and P17 and so
also the RTC extract Exs.P3 to P8 and also Exs.P13 to 16 and
all these documents clearly discloses that as on the date of
filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property and when such being the case, even though
defendant denies the document of Ex.P1 and an attempt was
made to send the document to the handwriting expert and the
said application was also dismissed in the month of September
but judgment was delivered after one year and ultimately the
order passed by the Trial Court was attained finality and now
cannot raise the question with regard to Ex.P1 and apart from
that, the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff was
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
HC-KAR
also challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the
Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant and the same attained finality and when such being
the case, appellant ought to have filed the suit for declaration
when the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff was
challenged and dismissed and not made any such attempt,
instead of, filed the appeal before the Appellate Court as well as
before this Court.
5. When such being the case, when both the Courts
have taken note of the fact that as on the date of filing of the
suit the plaintiff is in possession of the property, other than the
issue regarding possession in a suit for permanent injunction,
the Court cannot touch upon the title issue and hence, I do not
find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court in granting the relief as sought based on oral evidence as
well as the documentary evidence placed on record and hence,
I do not find any merit to admit and frame substantial question
of law as contended by the appellant's counsel making
suggestions to frame substantial question of law and such
suggestions would not arise in a case for bare injunction suit.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23698
HC-KAR
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
KG
