[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs Sri Chikka Bache Gowda on 28 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49588
RSA No. 507 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.507 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O BACHEGOWDA
DEAD BY LRS
1. SRI BACHE GOWDA
S/O VENKATRAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
2. SMT. GEETHA D/O BACHE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O BACHE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 4. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
Location: HIGH S/O BACHE GOWDA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
KARNATAKA
5. SRI. PRAKASH S/O BACHE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ALL ARE
RESIDENT OF GODALUMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANHALLI TALUK-562 110
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49588
RSA No. 507 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. CHIKKA BACHE GOWDA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT GODALUMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O CHIKKAMARITHAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT GODALUMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025,
APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS ABATED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.15024/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.12.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.289/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49588
RSA No. 507 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned
counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator-
respondent No.1.
2. Though there is a divergent finding, at the first
instance, Trial Court granted the relief of permanent injunction
and the same is reversed by the First Appellate Court. The First
Appellate Court also while reversing the judgment of the Trial
Court taken note of document of Ex.D5 which is the sale deed
in favour of the mother of the plaintiffs which discloses the
extent of the property as east to west 20 yards and north to
sought 15 yards. However, the mother executed the Will in
terms of Ex.P6 measuring east to west 70 yards and north to
sought 15 yards and boundaries mentioned in both the
documents are different i.e., in Ex.D5- sale deed and Ex.P6-
Will. The plaintiffs also did not produce the sale deed of the
mother, but the defendants had produced the same before the
Court, wherein the extent is different.
NC: 2025:KHC:49588
HC-KAR
3. The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.20 in
detail taken note of all these material on record and in
paragraph No.21 observed that there is no dispute, in a suit for
bare injunction, the Courts can incidentally decide the title, if it
was necessary for the adjudication of dispute. In a suit for bare
injunction, the duty is upon the plaintiff to prove his possession
over the suit schedule property with specific boundaries to
prove the identity of the property. In a case where the plaintiffs
claim possession based on the document through which the
title is acquired, there must be evidence to show that it is the
same property on which she claims her possession. But having
taken note of material available on record, particularly the
schedule mentioned in the plaint with regard to area i.e., east
to west 120 feet and north to south 45 feet, wherein also it is
stated that plaintiffs have constructed a residential house in the
land measuring to an extent of east to west 35 feet and north
to south 27 feet towards western side situated at
Godlumuddenahalli Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk
and boundaries are also given and this boundary not tallies with
Ex.D5 original sale deed and Ex.P6 Will and both are having
different boundaries and area taking into note of the same, the
NC: 2025:KHC:49588
HC-KAR
First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Trial Court
has erred in granting the relief. When such being the case, it is
not noticed by the First Appellate Court that when the claim
made in respect of possession is not in consonance with the
original sale deed Ex.D5 and the extent of land is also modified
in the Will executed by the mother and when possession is also
not established, question of granting the relief of permanent
injunction to the extent of what the plaintiffs are claiming does
not arise when there is no material to evidence the extent of
possession what they are claiming and the First Appellate Court
has not committed any error. Hence, not a case to admit and
frame any substantial question of law.
4. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
