Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. M. Chandraiah vs Smt. Srivani Chandrashekar on 7 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
RSA No. 985 of 2024
C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024
RSA No. 992 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.985 OF 2024 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2024 (INJ)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2024 (INJ)
IN RSA NO.985/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.M. CHANDRAIAH
S/O MAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.45
8TH MAIN ROAD
PRAKASHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 021.
2. SRI. B.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
Digitally signed S/O M. NARASIMHAIAH
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
Location: HIGH RESIDING AT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA FLAT NO.846
6TH MAIN ROAD
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 086.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HEGGANAHALLI
VISHVANEEDAM POST
OM SHANTHI TEMPLE ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
RSA No. 985 of 2024
C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024
RSA No. 992 of 2024
HC-KAR
SANJEVENI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAMESH KUMAR PATTAR
S/O BABURAO PATTAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 223
6TH CROSS, NANDINI LAYOUT
SARASWATHIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 096.
2. SRI. RAMESHMULLYA
S/O GURUVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT
HAVANURU LAYOUT
HESARUGHATTA MAIN ROAD
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.61/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2020
PASSED IN O.S.No.514/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
RSA No. 985 of 2024
C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024
RSA No. 992 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN RSA NO.991/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.M. CHANDRAIAH
S/O MAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.45
8TH MAIN ROAD
PRAKASHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 021.
2. SRI. B.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O M. NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.846
6TH MAIN ROAD
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 086.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT
HEGGANAHALLI
VISHVANEEDAM POST
OM SHANTHI TEMPLE ROAD
SANJEVENI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 091.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SRIVANI CHANDRASHEKAR
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.297
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
RSA No. 985 of 2024
C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024
RSA No. 992 of 2024
HC-KAR
12TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BENGALURU-560 010.
2. SRI. RAMESHMULLYA
S/O GURUVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT HAVANURU LAYOUT
HESARUGHATTA MAIN ROAD
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.60/2020 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
26.08.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.516/2016 ON THE FILE OF
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
IN RSA NO. 992/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.M. CHANDRAIAH
S/O MAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.45
8TH MAIN ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 021.
2. SRI. B.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O M. NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.846
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
RSA No. 985 of 2024
C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024
RSA No. 992 of 2024
HC-KAR
6TH MAIN ROAD,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 086.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT
HEGGANAHALLI
VISHVANEEDAM POST
OM SHANTHI TEMPLE ROAD
SANJEVENI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 091.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B.Y. MANJAPPA
S/O BASAPPA YELLER
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.243/1
NEAR K.G.KALYANA MANTAPA
JALAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU-560 013.
2. SRI. RAMESHMULLYA
S/O GURUVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT
HAVANURU LAYOUT
HESARUGHATTA MAIN ROAD
NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.V.AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
RSA No. 985 of 2024
C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024
RSA No. 992 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.59/2020 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
26.08.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.518/2016 ON THE FILE OF
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are heard earlier when the
matters are posted for admission. The learned counsel for
the appellant today also made the submission before the
Court that except producing the sale deed, they have not
produced any proof of document for layout plan and
approved plan except the khata certificate, encumbrance
certificate and also the tax paid receipt and not
established the identity of the property. Hence, the Trial
Court committed an error in granting the relief of
permanent injunction and unless property is identified
even assuming that defendants have not contested the
matter and even in the ex-parte also, plaintiff has to
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
HC-KAR
identify the property since in the schedule mentioned as
Sy.No.109 and respective site numbers in the said sale
deeds and hence both the Trial court as well as First
Appellate Court committed an error in granting the relief
of permanent injunction and confirming the same and
hence this Court has to admit the second appeal and
frame substantive question of law.
2. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondents brought to notice of this Court that the
defendants though filed the written statement, not
adduced any evidence and also earlier adduced evidence,
but filed a memo to discard the evidence of D.W.1 and the
same is found in the order of the Trial Court in paragraph
No.12 and also not lead any evidence and hence taken
evidence of defendant as no evidence.
3. The counsel would vehemently contend that
that in order to prove the identity of the property, not only
produced the sale deed, even in respect of the description
of the property which is described in the schedule, other
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
HC-KAR
relevant documents are produced that is encumbrance
certificate, B-property register extract as well as Ex.P.4 to
Ex.P.11 tax paid receipts and challan. The counsel would
vehemently contend that katha is a B-katha in respect of
the schedule properties are concerned and the same is
identified and particularly to the properties only, the
B-katha is issued and now the appellants cannot dispute
the identity of the property and even after discarding the
evidence, cannot disprove the identity of the property.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and also the learned counsel for the
respondents, particularly the Trial Court taken note of sale
deed Ex.P.1 and other documents of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.11. No
doubt as contended by the appellants' counsel that layout
plan is not placed before the Court. But, the fact is that
having purchased the property by the plaintiff, got it the
revenue records in respect of the property which is
morefully described in the schedule and B-Katha extract is
also placed before the Court and also paid the tax. In a
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
HC-KAR
suit for injunction, Court has to take note of as on the date
of filing of the suit whether the plaintiff is in possession of
the property, law is also settled. In order to substantiate
that plaintiff is in possession, not only produced the sale
deed as well as encumbrance certificate and B-katha
extract as well as tax paid receipts are also produced
before the Court and the same was taken note of by the
Trial Court in paragraph No.17 even relying upon the
judgment in ILR 2006 KAR 1047 SC in case of
Ramegowda V/s M.Varadappa Naidu wherein an
observation is also made that there is law presumes that
possession to go with the title unless the same is rebutted,
but in the case on hand also though defence is taken by
the defendant that identity of the property is not proved,
but not lead any evidence, only written statement
remains. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing is
elicited with regard to the possession is concerned. When
such being the case, the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 in
detail taken note of the possession was established by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
HC-KAR
plaintiff and even taken note of though defendants
adduced the evidence and got discarded the evidence.
5. The counsel appearing for the respondents also
brought to the notice of this Court that some of the
documents which have been placed before the Trial Court
and the same were not marked and if the documents are
marked on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiffs ought to
have taken the certified copies and none of the documents
are got marked on behalf of the defendants with regard to
the disputing the identity of the property and taken back
the same. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court
and First Appellate Court and also while considering the
grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated
the points whether the Court below has committed an
error in holding that plaintiff has proved his possession
over the suit schedule property as on the date of
institution of the suit while answering the same and also
the point No.2 whether it requires interference by the
Appellate Court and taken note of the material available
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
HC-KAR
on record particularly the plaintiff's evidence as well as in
paragraph No.14 made an observation that defendants
have filed memo stating that no evidence of the
defendants and even during the course of the cross-
examination, defendants have admitted the possession of
the plaintiffs over the suit property and hence, the Trial
Court rightly comes to the conclusion. When the judgment
of Apex Court i.e., Anantula Sudhakar was also pressed
into the service and the same was also extracted by the
Appellate Court in paragraph No.15 particularly extracting
the paragraph Nos.15 and 16.
6. It is not the dispute of the defendants that
there was no any sale deed. Only dispute is with regard to
the identity of the property is concerned. When the
documents of exhibit P-series Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 are
produced before the Court with regard to establishing the
possession of the plaintiff. Apart from that oral and
documentary evidence are also taken note of by the Trial
Court and Appellate Court while re-appreciating the same.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45257
HC-KAR
Hence, I do not find any ground to accept the contention
of the appellants' counsel that property is not identified
and even in the absence of any approved plan, when the
documents are stands in the name of the plaintiff and
concerned revenue authorities changed the katha and with
regard to the identification of the property is concerned,
they have issued the katha as well as collected the tax
paid receipt and this document establishes the possession
of the plaintiff. Hence, no ground is made out to admit and
frame substantive question of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Second Appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
