Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa vs Smt. Gowramma on 11 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
RSA No. 907 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.907 OF 2022 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O PULLOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O SURAGAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O MR. SHEKARAPPA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M R/O CHIKKAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 22.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.110/2004 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
RSA No. 907 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court in O.S.No.110/2004 while seeking the relief of
perpetual injunction, it is contented that she is the lawful owner
and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
and the same is the ancestral property of the brother of her
husband by name Sanganna Basappa and she is in possession
of the suit schedule property after the death of the said
Sanganna Basappa. The khatha and RTC stands in the name of
the plaintiff and she is growing maize crop and paying taxes to
the Government and the defendants without having any right,
title, interest or possession over the suit property, came near
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
the suit property on 01.07.2004 and made an attempt to stop
the plaintiff and her workers from working in the suit schedule
property and the plaintiff managed to prevent the illegal
interference of the defendants and hence prayed the Court to
grant the relief of permanent injunction.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1
and 2 entered appearance and defendant No.1 filed written
statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.2. The
defendants in the written statement denied the plaint
averments and contended that the land bearing Sy.No.6/2
measuring 2 acres 24 guntas is a dry land and one Sri Mallappa
S/o Budyappa Bangari, on the basis of inheritance, succeeded
to the property from his forefather as the said property was an
ancestral joint family property. It is contended that the said
Mallappa along with his two sons namely, Sanganna Basappa
and Shekharappa had constituted an undivided joint Hindu
family and Mallappa was acting as manager and kartha of the
family. He died leaving behind his two sons and the joint
family status continued by his two sons and the khatha in
respect of the said property was made in the name of elder son
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
of Mallappa by name Sanganna Basappa in the year 1943-44.
It is contended that though the name of Sanganna Basappa
remained as khathedar, one Sanna Durgoji S/o Ranoji, resident
of Suragihalli Village, cultivated the said land as a tenant and
the said Sanna Durgoji is none other than the maternal
grandfather of defendant No.1 and the name of maternal
grandfather of defendant No.1 continued in RTC upto 1975-76.
5. It is also contended that the said Sanna Durgoji
died in the year 1976 leaving behind three daughters and one
son by name Pulloji Rao. It is contended that the said Pulloji
Rao is the father of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant
No.1 pre-deceased his wife Smt. Nagavva and the name of
Nagavva came to be entered in column No.12 of the RTC for
the year 1978-1979 and in the cultivators column, the name of
one Mallarappa S/o Narasappa Jadhav has been entered. It is
contended that Mallarappa is none other than the maternal
uncle of defendant No.1 and the said property was in exclusive
possession of Mallarappa and from 1986-87 onwards writing
the names of persons who are cultivating the lands was given
up as per the circular of the Government. It is contended that
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule
property along with one Ajjappa Master. The defendant No.1
married the daughter of Ajjappa Master. It is contended that
there is no conflict of interest or difference amongst the
surviving legal heirs of deceased Pulloji Rao and the legal heirs
of deceased Mallarappa i.e., Ajjappa Master and defendant
No.1. It is contended that after the death of Sanganna
Basappa, the plaintiff got changed the khatha in column No.9 of
the RTC in her name exclusively as per M.R.No.9/1995-96 and
the cultivator's column was left blank. In column No.13, it is
mentioned as dry crops like ragi, maize, thogari are grown. It
is contended that M.R.No.9/1995-96 came to be entered
without any notice or following the procedure. It is also the
contention that the defendants are cultivating the property. At
no point of time, either the possession was given or taken up
by the plaintiff and the plaintiff by colluding with the revenue
officials, behind the back of the defendants, got transferred the
property in her name and the same was challenged before the
Assistant Commissioner and the same was dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
6. It is contended that initially, the plaintiff had filed a
suit against the defendants for the relief of perpetual injunction
and after appearance of the defendants, on the basis of the
plaint and the written statement, the Court had framed the
issues and subsequently framed additional issue and the said
suit was decreed and the defendants filed an appeal in
R.A.No.59/2008 and the same was allowed. The plaintiff
preferred a second appeal before the High Court and the High
Court remanded the suit with a specific direction to the Court to
permit the plaintiff to produce those two documents and the
parties were permitted to lead further evidence. It is also the
contention of the defendants that the defendants are in
possession of the property and without seeking the relief of
declaration, ought not to have granted the relief of permanent
injunction when there is a dispute with regard to the title is
concerned.
7. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, answered issue
Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and additional issue No.1 also in
the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
proved her right and ownership over the property and the
plaintiff has established the possession over the property and
considering all the documents stands in the name of the
plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit, granted the relief of
permanent injunction.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
an appeal is filed in R.A.No.10/2019. The First Appellate Court
considering the material available on record, particularly in
paragraph No.21, discussed oral and documentary evidence
and comes to the conclusion that when an application was filed
by the defendants under Section 77(A) of the KLR Act, the
same was dismissed and the appeal filed by the defendants in
R.A.No.87/2004-2005 was also dismissed. The document
which is marked as Ex.D.13 goes to show that the name of the
plaintiff was mutated in the RTC from 1994-95 in column No.9
and 12 based on the application filed by the plaintiff on
25.03.1987 and the same was challenged and when the said
appeal was dismissed considering the material on record,
comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed
any error in granting the relief.
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the Courts below were not right in decreeing
the suit of the plaintiff by placing burden of proof of possession
on the defendant in a suit for injunction and possession. The
learned counsel would contend that both the Courts are not
justified in considering the presumption under Section 133 of
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel would
contend that when the possession has not been established,
granting the relief of permanent injunction does not arise. The
learned counsel contend that from 1944 onwards, all the
records in column No.19 stands in the name of the defendants'
family and in the absence of any record that possession was
taken, the question of granting the relief of permanent
injunction does not arise.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
would vehemently contend that when the suit is filed for the
relief of permanent injunction, the Court has to look into the
documents as on the date of filing of the suit whether the
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
plaintiff is in possession or not. All the records clearly discloses
that the documents stands in the name of the plaintiff. Apart
from that, the application filed by the defendants under Section
77(A) of the KLR Act was rejected and when the challenge was
made with regard to the entries in favour of the plaintiff, the
appeal was also dismissed and as on the date of filing of the
suit, the plaintiff established the possession and hence the Trial
Court rightly granted the relief.
12. In reply to the argument of the learned counsel for
the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant brought
to the notice of this Court that the Trial Court committed an
error in framing an additional issue in a suit for bare injunction
that whether the plaintiff proves her right and ownership over
the suit schedule property. In a suit for bare injunction, ought
not to have discussed with regard to the ownership is
concerned.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent, though the learned
counsel for the appellant contend that the defendant has
disputed the very title of the plaintiff, having considered the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
very defence in the written statement, not disputed the
ownership as well as the relationship between the parties of the
plaintiff and original propositus of the family of Mallappa. It is
important to note that the Trial Court while answering
additional issue No.1, in paragraph No.18 taken note of the
admission on the part of D.W.1, wherein he categorically
admitted that the property originally belongs to Mallappa.
When the relationship between the parties are not disputed, the
Trial Court framed an issue with regard to the ownership and in
a suit for bare injunction, ought not to have framed an
additional issue and issue Nos.1 to 3 are the material witnesses
with regard to whether possession is established or not as on
the date of filing of the suit. Having perused the material
available on record, the suit schedule property is mutated in
favour of the plaintiff in the year 1996-97 and the fact that the
same was challenged before the competent authority and the
same was dismissed is not in dispute. On perusal of the order
of dismissal, since there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff,
the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that when there
was already a decree in O.S.No.110/2004, the question of
challenging the same does not arise. Apart from that, the Trial
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
Court taken note of when an application was filed under Section
77(A) of the KLR Act seeking the relief of grant, the same was
also rejected. Having perused the document of Ex.P.21, it is
very clear that the competent authority comes to the
conclusion that as on the date of occupancy rights law came
into existence, the property was not standing in the name of
the defendant and subsequently as on the date of claim also, it
was not standing in the name of the defendant and hence
rejected the same in coming to the conclusion that the
defendant is not in possession of the property. The defendant
is claiming that he is in possession based on the earlier entries
in column No.12 and from 1989 onwards, no such entry is
found in the name of the defendant.
14. It is settled law that while seeking the relief of
permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish his
possession and all the documents from 1994 onwards stands in
the name of the plaintiff and the suit was filed in 2004. It is
not the claim of the appellant/defendant that as on the date of
filing of the suit, the documents were standing in the name of
the defendant. The Court has to look into the possession as on
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45683
HC-KAR
the date of filing of the suit and in order to prove the
possession as contended by the appellant, there are no
documents before the Court. When such being the case, I do
not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is
in possession of the suit schedule property and hence rightly
granted the relief of permanent injunction. The very contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter
requires admission and to frame substantial question of law
does not arise by invoking Section 100 of CPC.
15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
