Karnataka High Court
Sri Lakshmana vs Sri A Ramaiah on 6 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
RSA No. 959 of 2007
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2007 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI LAKSHMANA
S/O. NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT BEEDIKERE VILLAGE
TUBAGERE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TQ
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
(SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 21.03.2025)
1(a) B.L. EREGOWDA
Digitally S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA
signed by C AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
HONNUR R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK
SAB BEEDIKERE,
Location: BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205.
HIGH COURT
OF 1(b) B.L. HANUMANTHAGOWDA
KARNATAKA S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK
BEEDIKERE
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205.
1(c) ANANDA
S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
RSA No. 959 of 2007
HC-KAR
R/AT BEEDIKERE,
GANTIGANAHALLI POST
DODDABALLAPURA TALLUK
BEEDIKERE
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205.
1(d) MANJUNATHA B.L.,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK
BEEDIKERE
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205.
1(e) RATHNAMMA
W/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT BEEDIKERE
GANTIGANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205.
1(f) ARAVINDA C. GOWDA
S/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK
BEEDIKERE, GANTIGANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL - 561205.
1(g) NARENDRA C. GOWDA
S/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK
BEEDIKERE, GANTIGANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANIKETH A.V., ADVOCAE FOR
SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.1 (A To G)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
RSA No. 959 of 2007
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI A. RAMAIAH
S/O. ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YRS
R/AT BEEDIKERE VILLAGE
TUBAGERE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
(SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 21.03.2025)
1(a) B.R. RAMANJANAIA
S/O. LATE A. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. DIBBUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND
DISTRICT - 562 101.
1(b) SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT. DIBBUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND
DISTRICT - 562 101.
1(c) SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
SHAMPANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
1(d) SRI. JAGADISH
S/O. LATE A. RAMAIAH
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
RSA No. 959 of 2007
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 101.
1(e) SRI. LOKESH
S/O. LATE A. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT- 562 101.
1(f) SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJA R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (B TO F) IS ABSENT
R1(A) IS SERVED.
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2017,
NOTICE TO R1 (D-F) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.4.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.36/2002 (OLD NO. 222/1998) ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), DODDABALLPUR, ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.09.1998 PASSED IN O.S.NO.78/1993 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC,
DODDABALLAPUR.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
RSA No. 959 of 2007
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal against a divergent finding is filed by
the defendant. Suit for injunction filed by the respondent is
dismissed. The plaintiff filed first appeal and the said first
appeal is allowed and consequently, the suit is decreed.
Aggrieved by the decree for injunction, the defendant is before
this Court and the Second Appeal is admitted vide order dated
02.09.2009 to answer the following substantial question of law,
"Whether the judgment and decree passed
by the First Appellate Court reversing the
judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.78/1993
is perverse and contrary to the evidence and
pleading on record when suit for specific
performance in respect of subject property is
pending in appeal between the parties?"
2. The brief facts are noticed as under,
The suit property is 2 Acres 25 Guntas of land in survey
No.71/2 in Beedikere Village, Tubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura
Taluk. There is no dispute that the plaintiff owns this property.
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
HC-KAR
The suit is filed on 08.03.1993 on the premise that the
defendant is interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the
property of the plaintiff.
3. The defendant contested the suit and took a stand
that the plaintiff and his son agreed to sell the suit property
along with three other properties. The defendant has taken a
contention that on 20.05.1986, the plaintiff has agreed to sell
the suit property and the defendant is in possession of the
same. The defendant has also taken the contention that he has
purchased the property for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- and
he is the absolute owner.
4. The Trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff is
not in possession and has also held that the agreement of sale
dated 20.05.1986 is duly established.
5. It is also relevant to note that the defendant has
filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.455/1995 in
respect of the suit property and other three properties covered
under the agreement dated 20.05.1986. The said suit is filed
against the present plaintiff as well as his son. The said suit is
decreed and decree for specific performance is granted.
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
HC-KAR
6. The first appeal filed by the defendant in the said suit
for specific performance is dismissed on the ground of delay.
Then, a second appeal is filed in RSA No.1916/2018 and the
said appeal is dismissed again on the ground of delay. It is
submitted that Special Leave Petition against the said decrees
is pending consideration before the Apex Court in SLP
No.19791/2019.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the decree for specific performance is granted and the
Court has recorded the finding in the said suit in
O.S.No.455/1995 that the present defendant(who is the
plaintiff in O.S.No.455/1995) is in possession of the property
pursuant to agreement of sale. Thus, the First Appellate Court
could not have allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for
injunction in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.78/1993 who has
suffered a decree for specific performance of contract in
O.S.No.455/1995 where there is a finding that the plaintiff in
O.S.No.78/1993 is not in possession of the property. The
finding of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff is in
possession based on the record of rights is totally erroneous;
and the First Appellate Court could not have ignored the decree
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
HC-KAR
for specific performance where there is a finding that the
present appellant is in possession of the suit property.
8. This Court has perused the records.
9. The following dates are relevant. The suit for
injunction in O.S.No.78/1993 is filed on 08.03.1993. The suit
for specific performance in O.S.No.455/1995 is filed in the year
1995. O.S.No.455/1995 was decreed on 30.03.2002. The suit
for injunction in O.S.No.78 of 1993 was dismissed on
22.09.1998. The first appeal is filed against the said judgment
in O.S.No.78/1993 in R.A.No.222/1998 and same is
renumbered as R.A.No.36 of 2002 on transfer. R.A.No.36/2002
was dismissed on 22.04.2006. The defendants in
O.S.No.455/1995 had filed an appeal against the decree for
specific performance in RA No.10136/2016. The respondent in
the said appeal had produced the judgment in
O.S.No.455/1995 before the First Appellate Court. However, the
First Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is in possession
of the property despite the finding in a decree in
O.S.No.455/1995 in which the agreement for sale is upheld and
the agreement holder is said to be in possession of the
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
HC-KAR
properties covered under the agreement. It is also noticed that
RSA No.1916/2018 is dismissed confirming the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.455/1995 and R.A.No.10136/2016.
10. Though the Special Leave Petition is pending before
the Apex court, in which the decree for specific performance is
challenged, there is no stay of the finding relating to the
possession of the present appellant pursuant to agreement for
sale dated 20.05.1986. What is stayed is the execution of the
decree in O.S.No.455/1995.
11. This being the position, this Court is of the view
that the First Appellate Court could not have granted a decree
for injunction holding that the plaintiff in O.S.No.78/1993 who
is the respondent in this case is in possession of the suit
schedule property. The finding of the First Appellate Court runs
contrary to the finding relating to possession of the suit
property in O.S.No.455/1995.
12. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is
answered in the affirmative. However, it is made clear that the
finding on possession recorded in this case is subject to finding
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19335
HC-KAR
of the Apex Court in pending SLP No.19791/2019. Hence the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgement and decree dated 22.04.2006
in R.A.No.36 of 2002 on the file of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) at Doddaballapura are set
aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree
dated 22.09.1998 in O.S.No.78 of 1993 on the
file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at
Doddaballapur are set aside and the suit is
dismissed, subject to the result in Special Leave
Petition No.19791/2019.
(iii) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
