Karnataka High Court
Smt Sharadamma vs Smt R G Nagarathna on 30 June, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22844
RFA No. 954 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 954 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE B.GOPALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13/65, 5TH MAIN,
15TH CROSS, SUBBARAJU LAYOUT,
LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 030.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAM., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. UDHAYA KUMAR.G &
SRI. RAMESHA.M.N., ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT. R.G.NAGARATHNA
S/O M.BHAKTAVASTALAM,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R R/AT NO.20, EAST CIRCLE ROAD,
Location: HIGH VISHWESHWARAPURAM,
COURT OF BANGALORE-04.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CPC.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22844
RFA No. 954 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Purushotham., counsel on behalf of Sri.Udhaya
Kumar.G., for the appellant and Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for
the respondent have appeared in person.
Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the
consent of counsel for the respective parties it is heard.
2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXIX Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-30).
3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to
as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.
4. The plaint averments are these:
It is stated that the defendant - Smt.R.G.Nagarathna is
the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is said that
she entered into an agreement for sale in favor of one
Mr.Veerappa on 13.08.1990. It is also averred that
Mr.Veerappa agreed to sell a portion of the property in favor of
plaintiff's husband Mr.B.Gopalaiah on 11.09.1992. The plaintiff
contended that Mr.Veerappa put her husband in possession of
the portion of the property. Because of the death of Gopalaiah
NC: 2025:KHC:22844
HC-KAR
on 17.07.2005, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction
contending that there is an interference by the defendant.
After the service of the suit summons, the defendant
appeared through her counsel and filed written statement and
denied the plaint averments. Among other grounds, she prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed
issues. The parties led evidence and got exhibited the
documents. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated
19.10.2017 dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the
present appeal under Section 96 of CPC.
5. Counsel Sri.Purushotham., for the appellant in
presenting his arguments submits that the Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court is contrary to law and opposed to the
documentary evidence on record.
Next, he submits that the Trial Court has failed to
consider the fact that the defendant had filed a suit for
permanent injunction against plaintiff's husband in
NC: 2025:KHC:22844
HC-KAR
O.S.No.4987/1993 and O.S.No.1971/2004 and they were
dismissed.
A further submission is made that Veerappa has formed
residential layout in the said survey numbers and the Trial
Court has failed to take note of the same and has erroneously
dismissed the suit.
Counsel vehemently contended that the Trial Court has
failed to consider Ex.P.3 Agreement of sale executed by
Veerappa in favor of Gopalaiah and delivered physical
possession of the suit property.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is untenable in law and
the same is liable to be set-aside. Counsel therefore, submits
that the appeal may be allowed and the plaintiff's suit may be
decreed.
Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., for the respondent justified
the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. He submits that
the Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and
rightly dismissed the suit. Counsel submits that the appellant
NC: 2025:KHC:22844
HC-KAR
has not made any grounds to interfere with the Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court. Counsel therefore, submits that the
appeal may be dismissed.
Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with
care.
6. The short point that requires consideration is
whether dismissal of the suit is just and proper.
7. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require
reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the
plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction. As could be seen from
the nature of lis between the parties, the suit is one for a bare
injunction based on possession as of the date of filing of the
suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima-facie right.
The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of the
date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in a
suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful
possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date
of filing of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:22844
HC-KAR
It is not in dispute that the defendant is the owner of the
suit schedule property. Hence, what is required to be
considered is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
schedule property as of the date of filing of the suit. The
plaintiff contended that one Veerappa entered into an
agreement for sale in respect of a portion of the suit schedule
property in favor of her husband. However, there is nothing on
record to show that there is an agreement between the
defendant and the said Veerappa. In the absence of the same,
it is hard to believe that the plaintiff has been put in possession
by Mr.Veerappa. Furthermore, the Trial Court extenso referred
to the material on record and rightly dismissed the suit holding
that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule
property as of the date of filing of the suit. I find no merit to
admit the appeal and interfere with the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:22844
HC-KAR
8. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed
at the stage of admission.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
