Karnataka High Court
Smt Thrupthi Shetty vs Smt. Rathi Shetti on 24 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
RSA No. 1354 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1354 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. THRUPTHI SHETTY,
W/O LATE RAVISHEKAR SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARAMANE,
HARIHARAPURA POST,
KOPPA TALUK-577 120.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RATHI SHETTI,
W/O LATE SHEKARA SHETTY,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M R/O SAMPEKOLALU,
Location: HIGH MENASE POST,
COURT OF SRINGERI TALUK-577 139.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA, ITINERATE, SRINGERI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2022
ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINGERI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
RSA No. 1354 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed by the
appellant/defendant against the concurrent finding.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is
that the defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, who is
the wife of plaintiff's son late Ravishekar Shetty @ S.
Ravikumar and that suit 'A' schedule property in Sy.No.166,
which is morefully described in the schedule, consists of house,
shop and hotel described as 'A' schedule and towards the
northern side of suit 'A' schedule property, the plaintiff has
encroached the agricultural land which is described as suit 'B'
schedule property and that the plaintiff is in possession of 'A'
and 'B' schedule property since 50 years and there is a 10
guntas of land towards northern side of 'A' schedule property,
which is the encroached portion by the plaintiff and in the
encroached land there are coconut trees and the plaintiff is in
possession of the 'B' schedule property by putting fence around
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
the suit 'B' schedule property and is in exclusive possession of
the property without anybody interference. It is also the case
of the plaintiff that she has filed an application before the
revenue authorities for the grant of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule
property and the said application is pending for consideration.
Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that she has already taken
electricity connection to 'A' property and she is paying
electricity charges and also paying the revenue taxes to the 'A'
schedule property to the Menase Grama Panchayath and her
son by name Ravishekar Shetty @ S.Ravishankar was residing
at Bombay and on 27.10.2020 her son demised and that during
his lifetime he has married the defendant who was residing at
Devarumane, Hariharapura and the defendant has no right,
title or interest over the suit schedule properties and the
plaintiff has depended upon suit 'A' and 'B' schedule property
for her livelihood. When such being the case, the defendant
tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property and hence, filed the suit.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant
appeared and filed the written statement admitting the
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
relationship with the plaintiff and her son and denied all other
averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff
is the mother of husband of the defendant and the husband of
the defendant was working at Bombay and he was the only
earning member of the family and that either the plaintiff or
her parents have no house property and the husband of the
defendant due to compelling situation went for employment
and on the earnings of the husband of the defendant, he has
purchased the house site under registered sale deed from one
K.Balakrishna Shetty, who acquired under the grant made by
Amaldar Sringeri and the said K.Balakrishna Shetty alienated
the suit property to the husband of the defendant and the same
is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The husband of
the defendant after purchase of the property from
K.Balakrishna Shetty has brought under the cultivation and the
said K.Balakrishna Shetty has grown coconut trees and other
fruits bearing trees and they brought under the cultivation and
the defendant after the above said sale deed got rectified under
rectification deed, which is also within the knowledge of the
plaintiff and on the strength of the registered sale deed, khatha
of the property was mutated in the name of the husband of the
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
defendant. It is contended that the relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendant was very cordial till the demise of
the husband of the defendant and after his demise, the plaintiff
started claiming right over the property purchased by her
husband and there was a threat to the defendant by the
plaintiff. Hence, she started residing with her parents. The
plaintiff has created the document to knock off the property
belonging to the defendant and in order to grab the property,
the plaintiff has filed application for grant of land, which is in
exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendant.
5. The Trial Court having considered the grounds
urged, framed the issue with regard to possession is concerned
and particularly in detail taken note of the case of P.W.1 in
paragraph No.12 and also document Ex.P.1 clearly reveals that
the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the 'A'
schedule property and she is paying tax. The Trial Court also
taken note of the evidence of D.W.1, wherein she categorically
admits that the plaintiff is in possession of 'A' schedule
property. However, D.W.1 claims that earlier she was in
possession of the property and after the death of her husband,
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
she was thrown out along with children and now she is staying
along with her parents at Hariharapura. The Trial Court taking
note of these admissions, comes to the conclusion that the
plaintiff has established the possession and granted the relief of
permanent injunction.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court and the First Appellate Court having re-assessed both
oral and documentary evidence available on record, formulated
the points whether the Trial Court committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and whether there is
any interference. The First Appellate Court having considered
these points for consideration, on re-appreciation of both oral
and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly in
paragraph No.25, taken note of Ex.P.17. As per Ex.P.17,
Balakrishna Shetty purchased the property bearing Sy.No.159
to an extent of 5 guntas from Sunkappa Shetty and the
boundaries mentioned in the plaint 'A' schedule as well as the
boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.17 and Ex.D.1 does not tally with
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
each other and also taken note of the admission on the part of
D.W.1 in the cross-examination both in respect of the suit
schedule property including 'B' schedule property and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
7. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have
committed an error in allowing the suit for permanent
injunction as against the daughter-in-law restraining her from
occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which
belongs to her late husband. The learned counsel would
contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not
appreciating the documents Exs.D.1 and 3 i.e., sale deed and
mutation. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts
committed an error in ignoring the settled principle of law that
unless the registered sale deed is cancelled or set aside by a
competent Court, the same is binding and the defendant is
entitled and having share in respect of her late husband's
property and hence, it requires interference of this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also on perusal of the reasoning of the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court, no doubt, the learned counsel for
the appellant brought to the notice of this Court Ex.D.1 sale
deed in respect of 5 guntas of land is concerned i.e., in respect
of Sy.No.166 and also relied upon the document Ex.D.3. But
the material is very clear that in the cross-examination of
D.W.1, she categorically admits that earlier she was in
possession, but at the time of filing of the suit, she was not in
possession. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on
the part of P.W.1 in respect of 'B' schedule property, which is
government land and she claims that she is in unauthorised
possession to an extent of 10 guntas of land, which is 'B'
schedule property in Sy.No.166, for which the defendant has
not spoken anything. The First Appellate Court also having re-
assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on
record, particularly in paragraph No.25, taken note of
possession of the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court. When such being the case, in a case
of suit for injunction, the Court has to look into only the
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
possession. If the possession is established, the Court has to
grant the relief of declaration.
10. It is the main contention of the appellant/defendant
before this Court that her husband had purchased the property
and the sale deed stands in her name. The Trial Court
extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 while coming to
such a conclusion with regard to possession is concerned and
the First Appellate Court, particularly in paragraph No.25, re-
considered the material on record. When the relief is sought
only for bare injunction and possession is established by the
plaintiff, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court in considering both oral and
documentary evidence with regard to possession is concerned
and the same is established by the plaintiff. The scope of suit
for injunction is also very limited.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the sale deed stands in the name of her husband, but not filed
any suit for comprehensive relief and the finding given by this
Court with regard to possession is concerned should not come
in the way of the appellant claiming comprehensive relief either
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48493
HC-KAR
for declaration or for relief of partition and separate possession.
Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant, the observation made by this Court shall not
come in the way of considering the fresh suit, if any, filed by
the appellant while claiming the relief based on the title of the
sale deed of her husband.
12. With this observation, this second appeal is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
