Karnataka High Court
Narayanaswamy Since Dead By His Lrs vs Smt Ademma W/O Narayanaswamy on 20 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
RSA No. 1364 of 2009
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1364 OF 2009 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYANASWAMY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
A) SMT. ESWWARI
W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED 47 YEARS, MOTHKAPALLI
VILLAGE & POST, THAYALUR HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TQ, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563131
B) NAGARAJ
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGE 43 YEARS, D K HALLI VILLAGE
& POST ROBERTSONPET HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
C) SMT DHANALAKSHMI
Digitally signed W/O LOGANATHAN
by NANDINI B AGE 41 YEARS, D K HALLI VILLAGE
G
Location: High & POST ROBERTSONPET HOBLI,
Court of
Karnataka BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
D) EHTIRAJ S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
(WRONGLY SHOWN AS S/O GANGADHAR)
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, D K HALLI VILLAGE
& POST ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET
TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101.
E) SMT THULASI
W/O LATE GANGADHAR
AGE 38 YEARS,
D.K. HALLI VILLAGE & POST
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
RSA No. 1364 of 2009
HC-KAR
ROBERTSONPET HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
F) SHANKARAIAH
S/O LATE NARAYASWAMY
AGE 34 YEARS,
M V NAGAR, OPPOSITE
MARINA LODGE, M V NAGAR,
D K HALLI ROAD BEML NAGAR
POST ROBERTSONPET HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
G) BRAHMAIAH
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGE 32 YEARS,
R/O AT D K PLANTATION
BEML NAGAR POST
ROBERTSONPET HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT ADEMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGE 60 YEARS, R/O D K PLANTATION,
BEML NAGAR POST, ROBERTSONPET
HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
DEAD ON 22.12.2024
APPL 1A TO G & R2 IS TREATED
AS LRS OF DECEASED R1 AS
PER ORDER DATED 07.11.2025
2. SRI. DORAIAH,
S/O NARAYANSWAMY
AGE 35 YEARS
R/AT D.K. PLANTATION,
BEML NAGAR ROBERSONPET
HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
RSA No. 1364 of 2009
HC-KAR
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
(V/O DT.07.11.2025, APLT NO.1 (A TO G)
& R2 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1))
THIS RSA IS FILED U/O 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 10.07.2009 PASSED IN R.A.82/2007 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.), K.G.F., ALLOWING THE
APPEAL SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2007
PASSED IN O.S.83/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE,
(JR. DN.), KGF.
THIS RSA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CAV JUDGMENT
The defendants in OS.No.83/2006 on the file of the
learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), KGF (hereinafter
referred as to 'the Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment and
decree dated 10.07.2009 passed in RA.No.82/2007 on the file
of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), KGF
(hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court'), allowing
the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court dated 20.07.2007 and decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the schedule properties.
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff -
Smt. Adamma, filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 9
seeking permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering
with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties
mentioned in the schedule. The schedule attached to the plaint
describes four items of properties i.e.,:
i. Survey No.61/2 (old survey No.23)
measuring 3 acres out of 4 acres situated at D.K.
Halli Plantation, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet
Taluk with katha No.89 with the boundaries
mentioned therein.
acres situated at the same D.K. Halli Plantation
with the boundaries mentioned therein, containing
various trees.
iii. Survey No.22 measuring 4 acres at D.K Halli
Plaintiation, with the boundaries mentioned therein,
containing various mango, coconut and tamarind
trees.
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
iv. The tractor bearing registration No. KA-08-
T79 with shed and the house measuring 22 X 22
feet with a well and a vacant site having V.P. Khata
No.19/2 situated at D.K. Halli Plantation, measuring
East to West 40 feet, North to South 50 feet with
the boundaries mentioned therein.
4. It is contended by the plaintiff that she is the
daughter of one Ammaniamma. During the lifetime of
Ammaniamma, she had given some amount to the plaintiff.
During her marriage, she had purchased the properties out of
the amount paid by her mother. Item No.1 measuring 3 acres
of land was purchased under the registered sale deed dated
13.02.1980 from one C.N. Rajagopal Gowda, and since then,
the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The
revenue record stands in her name. The plaintiff had availed
loan by mortgaging the said property in favour of Canara Bank.
5. The plaintiff contended that, she purchased Item
No.2 under three different sale deeds i.e. 20 guntas of land
under the sale deed dated 12.10.1972 from Bychappa, one acre
of land under the sale deed dated 07.06.1978 from
Narayanappa, and the another one acre of land under the
registered sale deed dated 17.12.1992 from one Pillappa. Since
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the
properties, and the Katha stands in her name. The plaintiff has
also purchased 2.20 acres of land in item No.3 under the
registered sale deed dated 23.10.1968 from Venkata Bovi. She
purchased 1.20 acres of land from D.V. Ramamurthy Gupta
under the sale deed dated 17.04.1974. Thus, she became the
owner in possession of 4 acres of land, and the katha stands in
her name.
6. It is contented that, Doddur Karpanana Halli Gram
Panchayath has granted the parcel of land in No.4, and the
possession certificate was issued in a favour of the plaintiff, and
the katha stands in her name. The plaintiff being the owner was
paying land revenue and the assessment tax in respect of the
schedule properties regularly. She has raised various trees, dug
bore-well and is in exclusive possession of the same.
7. The plaintiff contended that the defendants along
with unruly elements came to the schedule properties, and
tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the same on 10.06.2006. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
properties.
8. Defendant No.5 has appeared before the Trial Court
and filed his written statements denying the contentions taken
by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is contented that the plaintiff is
the wife of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 9 are their
children. The plaintiff and defendants are having joint family
properties at D.K. Halli Plantation. Some of the properties came
to defendant No.1 through partition amongst his brothers and
out of the income, the suit schedule properties were purchased
in the name of plaintiff. All the properties including the
schedule properties are purchased from out of the joint family
income or the joint family properties and the plaintiff is not in
exclusive possession of the same. She is not entitled for the
exclusive ownership. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for
the relief of permanent injunction against the family members.
Defendant No.5 reserved his right to file a suit for partition and
to claim his legitimate right in all the joint family properties.
Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
9. None of the other defendants have contested the
matter.
10. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court
framed the following issues.
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession over
the sit property on the date of suit?
2. Whether he further proves that the defendants
attempted to interfere with his possession?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent
injunction sought?
4. To what decree or order?"
11. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1, got
examined PWs.2 and 3, and got marked Exs.P1 to 20.
Defendant No.5 examined himself as DW.1, got examined
DWs.2 to 4, got marked Exs.D1 and 2 in support of his defence.
The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials
on record, answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and
accordingly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that
the plaintiff has not established the source of income for
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
purchasing the schedule properties. Therefore, it cannot be
held that she is in exclusive possession over the same.
12. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has
preferred an appeal in RA.No.82/2007. The First Appellate
Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, allowed the
same by holding that, since the suit of the plaintiff is for bare
injunction, title to the properties is not material to be
considered, since all the revenue documents stands in the
name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is successful in proving her
exclusive possession. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and
the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Being aggrieved by the
same, the defendants are before this Court.
13. Heard Sri. Raghavendra A Kulkarni, learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri. D Prabhakar, learned counsel for the
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials including the
Trial Court records.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The
plaintiff is the mother of the contesting defendant who is the
appellant herein. Admittedly, plaintiff is a housewife who was
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
not having any independent source of income. Defendant No.1
is the husband, defendant Nos.2 to 9 are their children.
Defendant No.1 was working in KGF and he has also acquired
certain immovable properties. From the income of defendant
No.1, he purchased the schedule properties in the name of the
plaintiff. The Trial Court on proper appreciation of the materials
on record, had dismissed the suit. But the First Appellate Court
committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, solely
on the basis of registered Sale Deed and the Revenue Records,
ignoring the fact that the appellant is one of the co-owner along
with the other defendants. He contended that it is the settled
position of law that no injunction could be granted against the
co-owners. Ignoring this fact, the First Appellate Court decreed
the suit of the plaintiff, which is erroneous.
15. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in Tukaram and Ors v/s Mahadev and Ors1 and
Eswaraiah v/s BS. Siddalingappa and Others2, to contend
that no injunction can be issued against a co-owner. He also
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Gabriel
RSA 5192/2009 DD 17.03.2014
ILR 1999 KAR 3037
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
Bhaskarappa Kuri and Others v/s The United Basel
Mission Church in India Trust Association and Others3 in
support of his contention that the First Appellate Court
committed an error in permitting the plaintiff - appellant to
produce additional documents even though there is a clear bar
under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC). Thus, learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the First Appellate Court has committed an error in decreeing
the suit of the plaintiff ignoring the settled position of law.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
opposing the appeal submitted that the plaintiff purchased the
schedule properties under various sale deeds produced before
the Court. All the revenue records with respect to the schedule
properties are standing in the name of the plaintiff. Admittedly,
it is the plaintiff who paid the tax or the revenue in respect of
the schedule properties. The appellant has never paid revenue
or the tax at any point of time. Other defendants including
defendant No.1 have never contested the matter. The First
Appellate Court was right in accepting the clinching documents
ILR 2007 KAR 773
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
that are produced by the plaintiff and decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff. He submitted that the First Appellate Court by a
reasoned order, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore,
there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, prays for
dismissal of the suit.
17. Both the learned counsels submitted that the
appellant / defendant No.5, filed the suit in OS.No.153/2006
before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession
of various properties including the schedule properties. Both
the learned counsel are not aware as to whether the suit was
decreed or dismissed. However, they contend that the appellant
has preferred Regular Second Appeal which is pending
consideration before this Court in RSA.No.253/2016. However,
learned counsel for respondent submits that even though
RSA.No.253/2016 is said to have been filed in the year 2016,
till day, the appellant has not taken any steps to serve notice
on the respondent / plaintiff.
18. Considering the contentions taken by the appellant,
this Court vide order dated 23.07.2010 formulated the
following substantial questions of law:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
"1) Whether the judgment and decree of the
First Appellate Court is perverse in granting an
injunction against the co-owner?
2) Whether the judgment and decree of the
First Appellate Court is perverse in not considering
the admitted plea with regard to the status of the
property?"
19. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she
purchased the schedule properties under various sale deeds
and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.
The schedule properties purchased by the plaintiff under
various sale deeds as produced by the plaintiff is not in dispute.
However, the only contesting defendant No.5 has taken up a
contention that the schedule properties were purchased from
out of the joint family income and also from the salary of
defendant No.1. It is pertinent to note that defendant No.1 or
any other defendants have never contested the matter.
20. The plaintiff who claims both the title and
possession over the schedule properties is examined herself as
PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1, 2, 17 to 19 - various sale deeds
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
under which the plaintiff is claiming right. Exs.P3, 4, 13 and 14
are the pahanies and possession certificate. Exs.P5 to P7 are
the RTCs, Exs.P8 and 9 are the tax paid receipts. Exs.P10 to 12
are the mutation register extracts. Exs.P15 and 16 are the tax
assessment extracts. The plaintiff who was aged 60 years at
the time of filing the suit was successful in proving that she had
purchased the schedule properties under the sale deed dated
23.10.1968 - Ex.P2, dated 17.04.1974 - Ex.P1, dated
12.10.1972 - Ex.P16, dated 07.06.1978 - Ex.P19, dated
17.12.1992 - Ex.P18, 13.02.1980 -Ex.P17. It is clear that the
first property that was purchased in the name of plaintiff was
on 23.10.1968.
21. It is the contention of the plaintiff that her mother
had given some amount to her and by utilizing the said
amount, she started purchasing the properties. PW.1 has
spoken to about the same in her evidence stating that her
mother had given her Rs.5,000/- towards Arishina-Kumkuma
which was utilized by her for purchasing the properties. Exs.P1
to 15 supports the contention of the plaintiff, with regard to the
revenue records, there is a presumption under Section 133 of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Unless the said
presumption is rebutted, the defendant cannot deny the claim
of the plaintiff.
22. Since the plaintiff purchased the first property in
the year 1968. Till 2006 when the suit came to be filed, none of
the defendants have not claimed any right over the properties.
It is only during 2006, that is after filing the suit by the plaintiff
for permanent injunction, the suit in OS.No.153/2006 came to
be filed by defendant No.5 seeking partition and separate
possession. It is stated that the said suit was ultimately came
to be dismissed and RSA.No.253/2016 is pending which was
filed by the appellant himself. In the said suit, defendant No.5
is claiming partition and separate possession of his right. If
defendant No.5 is successful in proving his contention that the
schedule properties were purchased in the name of the plaintiff
from out of the income of defendant No.1, or from out of the
income that was derived from other joint family properties, he
will be entitled for a share. But until his share is declared by
the Trial Court in the suit instituted by him, the claim of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
plaintiff which is based on title deed as well as the revenue
records which are referred to above cannot be denied.
23. Even, if the additional documents produced by the
plaintiff before the First Appellate Court are to be ignored, the
materials that are placed before the Trial Court are sufficient to
answer the issues in her favour. From the Title Deed, the
Revenue Reports and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the plaintiff is
successful in proving her exclusive possession over the
schedule properties and therefore she is entitled for a decree in
her favour. However, the original plaintiff died during the
pendency of this appeal she is now represented by one of the
defendant, who is contesting the appeal.
24. Admittedly, the Second Appeal in RSA.No.253/2016
is filed by the appellant herein. Pending consideration before
this Court, the rights of the parties will be decided in the said
appeal. Therefore, granting of permanent injunction in favour
of the plaintiff will be subject to the result of RSA.No.253/2016
filed by the appellant. Simply because the Second Appeal is
pending before this Court, the same cannot be a ground to
reject the claim of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47990
HC-KAR
25. I have gone through the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court. It has committed an error in ignoring
the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 and accepting the defence taken by
defendant No.5 to dismiss the suit. But the First Appellate
Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record has arrived
at a right conclusion. I do not find any illegality or perversity in
this case. Hence, I answer both the substantial questions of law
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records
along with the copy of this judgment.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
