Karnataka High Court
Sri.Guruswamy vs Smt.Gopamma on 20 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
RSA No. 1232 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1232 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. GURUSWAMY
S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. SRI. CHALUVARAJU
S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI
W/O NITHYANANDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4. SRI. NITHYANANDASWAMY
S/O LATE KUNNAMADAIAH
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. SMT. CHANDRAKUMARI
KARNATAKA D/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
R/AT AMBEDKAR BEEDI
4TH WARD, SAGAGUR TOWN
SARAGUR HOBALI
SARAGUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571121.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
RSA No. 1232 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. GOPAMMA
W/O HONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/T AMBEDKAR BEEDI
4TH WARD, SARGUR TOWN
SARAGUR HOBALI
SARAGUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571121.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2024
PASSED IN O.S.NO.392/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the
plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in
O.S.No.392/2013 that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
suit schedule property bearing Katha No.71 measuring
East to West 45 feet, North to South 30 feet is the vacant
site wherein Mangalore tiled house situated in the extent
of 12½ x 20 feet. The boundary is also disclosed in respect
of the same and the same was purchased by the plaintiff
through registered sale deed dated 06.10.1994 for sale
consideration of Rs.8,000/- from one Hanumanthaiah, the
said vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the suit
schedule property through registered sale deed dated
29.05.1987 from one Ramesh. Having purchased the
property, all the revenue records are standing in the name
of the plaintiff. The defendant without title, right or
interest over the suit schedule property, causing
obstructions to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property and hence, filed the suit. In
pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.3 appeared
and filed the written statement wherein stated that she
doesn't know that the plaintiff has purchased the suit
schedule property through registered sale deed in the year
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
1994 and also with regard to the earlier sale deed and also
denies that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possession
of the suit schedule property and also the interference by
the defendants. However, defendant No.3 further
contended that this defendant No.3 had filed the suit
against the present plaintiff and other members in
O.S.No.86/2012 and interim order was granted and
defendants shall not obstruct the possession of the plaintiff
in the suit property. But, the plaintiff has disguised the
said fact and boundary of the suit schedule property is
false and with an intention to grab the property of the
defendant, the plaintiff has filed suit and measurement
shown in the plaint is created and imaginary. This
defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.86/2012 to an extent of
30 x 78 feet along with residential house. The defendant
also purchased the property through a registered sale
deed on 29.05.1985, since from the date of purchase,
defendant No.3 is in possession of the property along with
family members and constructed the building measuring
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
East to West 26 feet, North to South 28 feet and
remaining place is vacant. Now, the plaintiff has filed the
false case against the plaintiff and hence, prayed the Court
to dismiss the same.
3. Having considered the pleadings of both the
parties, Trial Court framed the issues and also allowed the
parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered
both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the
conclusion with regard to the claim of the plaintiff and
defendants and also taken note of registered sale deed of
the year of 1987 and boundary mentioned in the earlier
sale deed also extracted in paragraph No.16, so also taken
note of document Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3 i.e., subsequent sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff and so also the
measurement mentioned as 45 x 30 feet in respect of
Katha No.71 and so also Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 property register
extracts, Katha document and affidavit issued by Pattana
Panchayath. Having taken note of all these documents,
comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is the owner of the
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
suit schedule property to an extent of 45 x 30 feet in
respect of Katha No.71 and also taken note of document
stands in the name of the plaintiff and also to the extent of
only 45 x 30 feet, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 also certified copy
of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.86/2012
filed by the defendant No.3. On perusal of all these
documents, it is the claim of the plaintiff that he is the
owner to the extent of 45 x 30 feet and case of the
defendant is 30 x 70 feet and even boundaries to the said
suit is also mentioned in paragraph No.18 and so also
taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.2 in
paragraph No.20 with regard to the possession of the
defendant wherein he has been in possession and the
plaintiff was the defendant in O.S.No.86/2012, on clear
admission, it clearly appears that property of the plaintiff
is situated adjacent to the property of the defendant No.3
and the same is observed in paragraph No.21 and also the
property of the defendant also in detail discussed in
paragraph No.22 and in paragraph No.23 also taken note
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
of the extent of land and document Ex.D.2 certified copy
of the property tax register is standing in the name of
defendant No.2 to the extent of 30 x 78 feet and in the
said document, boundary also taken note and considering
both oral and documentary evidence, it is very clear that
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are clearly shows strengthening the
boundary to the scheduled property which plaintiff claims
and the very suggestions made by the defence counsel
during the course of cross-examination P.W. 1 that he had
wrongly mentioned the boundary also categorically denied.
4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence in paragraph No.28 comes to the
conclusion that the property in which defendant claims is
different from property in which the plaintiff claims and
plaintiff's claim only with regard to 30 x 45 feet and also
the Katha property is also different and also the
boundaries mentioned in the sale deed got marked at
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 and boundary mentioned in the plaint
schedule also corroborate with each other and answered
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
the Issue No.1 as affirmative and also with regard to the
defence is concerned and discussed with regard to the
interference while answering Issue No.2. The suit filed by
the defendant No.3 against the plaintiff came to be
dismissed by observing that plaintiff has failed to prove
the boundary to the property belongs to her and hence,
taken note of the claim made by the defendant falsifies the
same and hence, comes to the conclusion that interference
by the defendant while answering Issue No.2 and plaintiff
is the owner of the suit schedule property to the extent of
35 x 40 feet and granted the relief of permanent
injunction.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.50/2024 and
considering the grounds which have been urged,
formulated the point with regard to the proving of
possession of the plaintiff and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property and interference and point Nos.2 and 3
are answered as negative in coming to the conclusion that
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
the plaintiff has established the possession in respect of
the suit schedule property particularly considering a
document Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 sale deed and also both oral
and documentary evidence was taken note of. The D.W.1
also admitted about the existence of suit schedule
property towards the northern side of the property of
defendant No.3 and also taken note of evidence of D.W.1,
he never deposed that plaintiff has given false boundaries
to the suit schedule property even though defendants
have raised a defence that the plaintiff has given false
boundaries to the scheduled property, but to substantiate
the said contention, nothing is placed on record. Apart
from that it is the admitted fact that the suit filed by
defendant No.3 in O.S.No.86/2012 against the plaintiff
was also dismissed wherein also the defendant No.3
admitted that there exists a house on vacant site which
belongs to the present plaintiff towards the northern side
of the property of the present defendant No.3. Having re-
assessed both oral and documentary evidence, the First
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Trial Court
has not committed any error.
6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court and
counsel would vehemently contend that this Court has to
frame a substantive question of law that an error of law
was committed by it in believing the entries in the
documents which do not rise any legal presumption and
also contend that suit filed before the Trial Court is not
sustainable and termination of notice to the tenant in the
said lease was issued any time after the said lease deed
had expired and suit was instituted not within time. Hence,
this Court has to admit and frame substantive question of
law.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also on perusal of the reasoning of the Trial
Court, particularly the plaintiff claims that the vendor of
the plaintiff had purchased the property in the year 1987
and plaintiff also purchased the same in the year 1994 and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
measurement mentioned in both the sale deed Ex.P.2 and
Ex.P.3 is one and the same and schedule shown in the
plaint also the same and also taken note of admission on
the part of D.W.1 in the earlier proceedings in which in the
suit, the plaintiff was also a defendant and suit filed by the
defendant No.3 was also dismissed in O.S.No.86/2012 in
coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove
the boundary to the property belongs to her and having
taken note of all these material, Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that plaintiff has established his possession in
respect of the suit schedule property particularly to the
extent of 45 x 30 feet which he derived through the sale
deed and when the possession is established by the
plaintiff, when the suit is also filed only for the bare
injunction and law is settled that if the plaintiff establishes
his possession in respect of the suit schedule property,
Court has to grant the relief of permanent injunction if
plaintiff is in possession as on the date of the suit. In order
to prove the possession, relied upon the document Ex.P.1
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
to Ex.P.13 and even relied upon the certified copy of the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.86/2012 which
was filed against the plaintiff and the same was dismissed
and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court also re-assessed both oral and
documentary evidence available on record while answering
point Nos.2 and 3. Hence, I do not find any error on the
part of the Trial Court and Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court in paragraph No.29 also taken note of admission on
the part of D.W.1 and so also taken note of admission
about the existence of suit schedule property towards the
northern side of the property of the defendant No.3. In the
cross-examination, he never deposed that plaintiff has
given the false boundaries to the suit schedule property.
When such being the case, even considered in paragraph
No.30 that suit filed by the defendant No.3 was dismissed
as against the plaintiff. All these materials were considered
by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. When
such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48012
HC-KAR
frame substantive question of law since both facts and law
are considered by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
