Karnataka High Court
Smt N Ramanujamma vs Sri Mahadev on 26 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22463
MSA No. 86 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.86 OF 2023 (RO)
BETWEEN:
SMT. N. RAMANUJAMMA,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS.
1. SRI. ADINARAYANA,
PAPANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
R/AT NO.301, RICHMOND PALACE,
32, CONVENT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560025.
2. SMT. S. LAKSHMI KAMESWARI,
W/O S. KRUPAKARA RAO,
R/A NO.102,
RANGANATHA RESIDENCY,
Digitally signed SHYAMA NAGAR, TIKKAL ROAD,
by DEVIKA M
VIJAYAWADA - 520010.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SMT. P. SRIDEVI,
W/O P. RAMAKRISHNA,
R/AT FLAT NO.B-102,
TRENDSET RHYTHM,
WHITEFIELD, KONDAPURA
HYDERABAD - 500 084.
4. SMT. ANURADHA,
W/O K.S. SUNDAR,
R/A D.NO.115, RD NO.5,
PRASHANTH NAGAR,
NARAYANAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560077.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22463
MSA No. 86 of 2023
HC-KAR
5. SRI. N. YOGANAND,
S/O SRI. ADINARAYANA,
R/AT FLAT NO.504, SPENTA,
HIRANANDANI ESTATE,
PATILPADA, THANE - 400 607.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHADEV,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
R/AT MALLAKAKAN DODDI,
TARALU PANCHAYATH,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (U) R/W
SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.01.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2020 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.11.2018 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.1279/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL II CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND THE
MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH
DISPOSAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22463
MSA No. 86 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This appeal is filed against the remand order
passed by the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court
dismissed the suit on the ground that the original sale
deed is not placed before the Trial Court and the same
was challenged before the First Appellate Court. Before
the First Appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff filed the
document along with an application under Order 41 Rule
27 of CPC i.e., sale deed and the defendant/appellant
herein also appeared and filed the written statement
relying upon one more document of sale deed dated
13.06.2008. The said document was disputed by the
appellant/plaintiff before the First Appellate Court stating
that no such GPA was executed in favour of anyone and
nor sold the suit schedule property and the sale deed
produced by the respondent is fabricated. Having taken
NC: 2025:KHC:22463
HC-KAR
note of the said contention, the First Appellate Court in
paragraph Nos.26 to 28 comes to the conclusion that
there is a dispute with regard to the very document is
concerned and the matter requires to be remanded and
hence set aside the Trial Court's order and remanded the
matter to consider the same afresh by giving an
opportunity to both the parties.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
present appeal is filed before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that when the plaintiff had already
sold the property, the question of maintaining the suit for
the relief of permanent injunction does not arise. The
learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court
the document which was placed before the First Appellate
Court.
5. Having considered the said submission and
also on perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate
Court, the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.27 taken
NC: 2025:KHC:22463
HC-KAR
note of the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff dated
04.04.2008 and the defendant/appellant herein relied
upon the registered sale deed dated 13.06.2008 and the
said document is executed by the GPA holder
B.S.Nagaraja in favour of B.M.Jayapala and the same is
disputed by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court.
When such dispute is made in respect of the very sale
deed, the matter has to be considered by the Trial Court
with regard to the very execution of the document. If
the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there was a
sale deed through GPA holder executed by the plaintiff,
then the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for the relief of
permanent injunction. If the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that the very document is fabricated, as
contended by the plaintiff and not proved the sale deed,
which has been placed on record before the First
Appellate Court by the appellant herein, the crux of the
issue involved between the parties is with regard to the
very execution of the subsequent sale deed and without
recording the evidence by the Trial Court, the Trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC:22463
HC-KAR
cannot give any finding. Hence, I do not find any error
committed by the First Appellate Court in remanding the
matter in view of the dispute between the parties in
respect of the alleged sale deed. Hence, no ground is
made out to admit the appeal and the miscellaneous
second appeal is devoid of merits.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
