Karnataka High Court
Narasimha Murthy vs Chikka Narasaiah on 18 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
RSA No. 1643 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHA MURTHY,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
1. SHIVAMMA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. MANJULA,
D/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
PRESENTLY BOTH ARE R/O. P-56,
3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN, C - BLOCK,
GAYATRINAGAR,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 021.
by DEVIKA M
...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKKA NARASAIAH,
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
2. SIDDA LINGAIAH,
S/O CHIKKA NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
RSA No. 1643 of 2024
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
R/O GOWDIHALLI VILLAGE,
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK.
3. BORAMMA,
W/O LATE SHANKARANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O VIVEKANANDANAGARA,
2ND CROSS, RANGAPURA ROAD,
TIPTUR TOWN.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, TUMAKURU,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.58/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TUMAKURU.
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 appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of injunction, it is
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
HC-KAR
specifically pleaded that land in Sy.No.20/5 totally measuring
1-02 acres, Sy.No.20/3 totally measuring 1 acre and
Sy.No.21/1 measuring 2-24 acres situated at Gowdihalli
Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, which is morefully
described in the schedule, originally belonged to one
Chikkanna, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The
said Chikkanna had acquired the same through inheritance.
After his death, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 being the sons
have succeeded to the above lands and were in joint possession
and enjoyment of the property. In between the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 there was a palupatti dated 15.12.1982 and got
shared the property equally and they are in possession of the
property. It is further contented that one Shankaranarayana,
the husband of defendant No.3 was utter stranger to this
property and had no manner of right, title or interest and
started interfering with possession of the plaintiff property and
also created the concocted sale deed. The Deputy Tahasildar
has registered a RRT and passed an order changing the katha
and pahani of the entire extent of lands in the said survey
numbers including the suit properties in the name of
Shankaranarayana. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have also
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
HC-KAR
preferred the appeal and the said appeal was allowed and set
aside the order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar and the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Taking
advantage of the plaintiff is residing at Bangalore, he used to
visit the suit properties once in a week and looking after the
agricultural properties trying to interfere with possession of the
property of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1
and 2 admitted the statement of the plaint averments and
contended that there was a partition between them on
15.12.1982. The defendant No.3 appeared and filed the
written statement contending that there was a sale deed in the
year 1959. Chikkanna on his behalf and also on behalf of his
then minor sons executed a registered sale deed in favour of
Siddaiah S/o Chikkanna and hence the purchaser became the
absolute owner and subsequently in turn, he sold the suit
properties in favour of Narasamma W/o Doddarangaiah under a
registered sale deed dated 03.08.1962 and she became the
absolute owner in possession of the property. After the death of
Narasamma, her only son Shankaranarayana became the
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
HC-KAR
absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and hence, the
very claim made by the plaintiff that the property is an
ancestral property and the same is inherited by him is false and
frivolous.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record taken note of the sale
deed of the year 1959 and subsequent sale deed of the year
1962 and the property stands in the name of
Shankaranarayana and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is
not in possession of the suit schedule property and dismissed
the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial
Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.42/2021. The First
Appellate Court also is having considered the grounds urged in
the appeal, formulated the Points for consideration and also
having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
HC-KAR
aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in this second appeal is that the
judgments of both the Courts are perverse and not based on
any material available on record. In a suit for permanent
injunction, the Court has to look into the documents which
establishe the possession of the plaintiff. The Trial Court fails
to take note of the documents at Ex.P1 to P26 but erroneously
taken note of the documents of 'D' series. Hence, this Court has
to admit the appeal and frame the substantial questions of law.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and also on perusal of the material on record as well
as the reasoning given by the Trial Court, it discloses that the
Trial Court taken note of the sale made by the father of the
plaintiff long back in the year 1959 and subsequent sale deed
of the year 1962 made by the subsequent purchaser. The
counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that at
the time of sale, the plaintiff was a minor and the said
contention cannot be accepted since the legal heirs of
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
HC-KAR
Chikkanna were minors, the same was challenged immediately
and the property was transferred in the year 1959 as well as
the document of Ex.D30 came into existence on 23.08.1962
and records also disclose that taking the advantage of the
property stands in the name of original owner Chikkanna, got
transferred the katha and also got the property partitioned
among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. It has to be
noted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have supported the case of
the plaintiff and hence it is collusive suit. But the fact that
when there was a sale in the year 1959 itself, it is very clear
that the very family members of the plaintiff only sold the
property. Only based on the document of change of katha in
the name of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, the Court
cannot grant the relief of permanent injunction when the
registered document clearly reveals with regard to the handing
over the possession in the year 1959 and in turn, purchaser
has handed over the possession in the year 1962 and when the
property got changed in the name of the plaintiff, the same was
also questioned before the competent authority. When such
being the case, I do not find any grounds to admit the appeal
NC: 2025:KHC:47547
HC-KAR
and to frame any substantial questions of law invoking Section
100 of CPC.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD/SN
