Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajeshwari vs Sri M S Veerupakshaiah on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
RSA No. 187 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.187 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJESHWARI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O T.S. RAJASHEKHAR,
R/O 4TH MAIN ROAD,
K.R. EXTENSION, TIPTUR,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M.S.VEERUPAKSHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O SHIVANNA,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M R/O BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.
KARNATAKA
2. DR. M. VEERARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
R/O GARDEN HOUSE,
HINDISKERE GATTE,
KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
RSA No. 187 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.80/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.241/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR.
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
respondent No.1.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent
injunction and the plaintiff has to establish his possession. The
Trial Court while considering the admission on the part of
D.W.1, comes to the conclusion that D.W.1 categorically
admitted the possession of the plaintiff and the same is
discussed in paragraph No.11. The only contention of the
defendants was also taken note of that the original owner
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
HC-KAR
executed Ex.D.2 sale agreement in respect of the suit schedule
property and by filing the suit for specific performance, the suit
came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, the
present suit is for the relief of bare injunction based on the
possession and also even considered the documents Exs.P.1 to
10, which clearly discloses the exclusive lawful possession of
the plaintiff and hence granted the relief of permanent
injunction.
4. Being aggrieved by the said finding, an appeal is
filed by defendant No.2 in R.A.No.80/2017. The First Appellate
Court also having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record and keeping in view the grounds,
which have been urged in the appeal memo, taken note of the
defence of defendant No.2 in paragraph No.22 with regard to
the sale agreement executed in her favour in respect of the
land measuring 10 guntas in the aforementioned survey
numbers and he had not performed the agreement and
therefore, she had also filed a suit for specific performance and
the same was decreed as per Ex.D.1. However, the present suit
has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
HC-KAR
injunction based on possession. The documentary evidence
produced by the plaintiff coupled with the admission of
defendant No.2 clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has
established his possession over the suit property by producing
both oral and documentary evidence and hence confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court.
5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have
committed an error in granting the relief of permanent
injunction and not exercised the power under Order 41 Rule 31
of CPC. The plaintiff totally failed to prove the possession and
the First Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the entire
material on record. The learned counsel would contend that
both the Courts have acted without jurisdiction in granting the
decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.2
notwithstanding the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff from the
GPA holder of defendant No.1 is hit by doctrine of lis pendens
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
HC-KAR
embodied under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame
substantial question of law.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in a suit for bare
injunction has taken note of the possession and the same has
been admitted and the documents which have been produced
also clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession and
hence, rightly granted the relief of permanent injunction.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for respondent No.1, in a suit for bare
injunction, it is settled law that the Court has to take note of
whether the plaintiff establishes his possession as on the date
of filing of the suit. The Trial Court having considered both oral
and documentary evidence available on record, in detail
discussed in paragraph No.11 that D.W.1 in the cross-
examination categorically admitted the possession of the
plaintiff. The Trial Court also taken note of the defence of
defendant No.2 pertaining to the document of Ex.D.2 sale
agreement and also taken note of when the suit is filed for the
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
HC-KAR
relief of permanent injunction based on possession, the Court
has to look into the documents and Exs.P.1 to 10 clearly
discloses the exclusive lawful possession of the plaintiff over
the suit schedule property and also the defendant also admitted
the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property
and hence, granted the relief.
9. The First Appellate Court also re-assessed both oral
and documentary evidence available on record and taken note
of the same in paragraph No.22 while discussing the case of
the appellant that the present suit is filed for the relief of
permanent injunction based on possession. The documentary
evidence produced by the plaintiff coupled with the admission
of defendant No.2 clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has
established his possession over the suit property and hence,
confirmed the same. When both the Courts have taken note of
oral and documentary evidence, especially the admission on the
part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination admitting the
possession of the plaintiff, the very contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that both the Courts have committed
NC: 2025:KHC:47697
HC-KAR
an error and also pressing of Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, does not arise in a case of suit for bare injunction.
Both the question of fact and question of law is considered by
the Trial Court that the plaintiff has proved his case with regard
to the possession as on the date of the suit considering the
document Exs.P.1 to 10 and hence, not a case to invoke
Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
