Karnataka High Court
Sri. K S Ramashastry vs Sri Narayana on 7 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
RSA No. 1569 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.1569 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.S. RAMASHASTRY,
S/O SEETHARAMA BHAT,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT. B.S. PARVATHAMMA,
W/O LATE K.S. RAMASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.
2. SMT. K.S. SHASHIKALA,
W/O LATE VISHWANATHA N.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT ARDESHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
Digitally signed DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
by DEVIKA M
BENGALURU URBAN TALUK-562110.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SMT. R. PADMA,
W/O NAGARAJA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1397, 1ST FLOOR,
19TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK,
RAJAINAGAR, BENGALURU-10.
4. SMT. SHALINI,
D/O LATE VIJAYALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.205/A,
'E' BLOCK, 8TH MAIN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
RSA No. 1569 of 2024
HC-KAR
AMBA BHAVANI TEMPLE ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NARAYANA,
S/O RODDANNA @ KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O ARDESHANAHALLI,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI CHIKKANNA,
S/O HEMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
3. SRI. BALACHANDRA,
S/O CHIKKAKEMAPAIAH,
AGED ABOURT 53 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT ARDESHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA N.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.06.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, C/C II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.419/1993 ON
THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
RSA No. 1569 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the
caveator/respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent
injunction, it is stated that the plaintiff is the absolute owner
of the suit property, which is consisting of vacant land
together with shed and he has been in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. The property originally
belonged to M. Seetharamaiah, who was jodidhar. He sold
the suit property in favour of Seetharam Bhat, who is the
father of the plaintiff on 15.07.1949. The plaintiff executed
the release deed in favour of his brothers releasing his rights
over the joint family properties except the suit property and
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
HC-KAR
the properties mentioned therein. Thus, the plaintiff has
been in possession of suit property since 1972 by paying tax
to the concerned authority. The defendants have no right
over the suit property and are making an attempt to
interfere with possession of the plaintiff and hence filed a
suit for the relief of permanent injunction.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement contending that the plaintiff is not entitled for any
relief. The property No.204 and other property is
Government kharab land measuring 4 guntas of vacant land
and there is another kharab voni measuring 11 guntas. They
are situated adjacent to each other in the said land. It is in
exclusive possession of the defendants and other villagers of
Aradeshanahalli village. They have put up thatched huts and
they are keeping their stock and storing fuel in the said
Government kharab property. Veeraiah and other villagers
have made application to the Tahasildar for grant of suit land
to them. Other villagers also filed applications for grant of
sites and the same are pending. The defendants and other
villagers are in possession of the said property and making
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
HC-KAR
use of the same. The plaintiff and his vendors are not in
possession of the said property and the plaintiff has filed a
false suit.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead
evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, compared the
schedule mentioned in Ex.P.1 sale deed under which the
plaintiff claims that he is in possession and also taken note of
the description of the property given in the suit and comes to
the conclusion that the schedule mentioned in the sale deed
as well as the schedule mentioned in the plaint does not tally
with each other. It is also observed that in the sale deed the
definite area is not mentioned. The Trial Court also taken
note of photographs at Exs.D.1 to 6, which have been
produced by the defendants that there are huts in the said
land. Apart from that, the Trial Court also taken note of the
evidence of the witnesses in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15
and particularly in paragraph Nos.26 and 27 comes to the
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
HC-KAR
conclusion that identity of the property is not proved and
also possession is not established and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is
filed in R.A.No.5/2022. The First Appellate Court considering
both oral and documentary evidence available on record,
taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 in the cross-
examination that he has no documents with him to show the
suit schedule measurement and also admitted that in the
year 1956, the Government has taken possession of inamti
land. The First Appellate Court also taken note of
photographs in paragraph No.15, which discloses that the
plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and also taken
note of that P.W.4 has admitted about the huts put up by the
defendants and there are various people in the village who
have put up huts in the disputed property and hence comes
to the conclusion that the persons who are in possession
were not arrayed as defendants and also taken note of the
document of Ex.P.1 and boundaries and comes to the
conclusion that the vendor was not having any title over the
property in order to convey the same. Exs.P.4 to 7 are the
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
HC-KAR
tax paid receipts, which does not disclose the number and
measurement of the property. All these factors were re-
appreciated by the First Appellate Court and dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants before this Court is that the sale deed is
produced to show that the property was purchased in the
year 1949 i.e., on 15.07.1949 and other documents are also
produced before the Court. The plaintiff has been in
possession of the property and demand register extract is
produced as Ex.P.16 and inspite of materials are placed
before the Court, the same has not been properly considered
by both the Courts. The learned counsel also vehemently
contend that this Court has to frame the substantial question
of law and exercise its jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 31 of
CPC. It empowers the Appellate Court to discuss the point
for consideration and the very finding of the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court is illegal. Hence, the reasoning
given by both the Courts requires interference and to admit
the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
HC-KAR
8. Per contra, the counsel for the
caveator/respondent Nos.1 to 3 would vehemently contend
that the Trial Court has taken note of the factual aspects of
the case, particularly when the suit is filed for the relief of
permanent injunction, relying upon the document of sale
deed which does not disclose the extent of land and apart
from that, measurement also does not tally. The boundary
descriptions given in the sale deed and in the plaint are not
consistent and these aspects were considered by both the
Courts.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and the learned counsel for the
caveator/respondent No.1 to 3 and particularly taking note of
the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff pleaded that the
property was acquired as per the sale deed of Ex.P.1. The
issue is not in respect of the title is concerned and issue is
with regard to the identity of the property. The defendants
have also produced the documents of Exs.D.1 to 6 to show
that other people have put up the huts and the plaintiff is not
in possession of the property. It is important to note that the
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
HC-KAR
Trial Court while dismissing the suit, made an observation
considering the boundary description mentioned in Ex.P.1 as
well as the schedule given in the plaint that the same does
not tally with each other. Both the Courts taken note of both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record and comes
to the conclusion that Exs.P.4 to 7 tax paid receipts also not
discloses the property number and property description. The
document of Ex.P.1 and boundary description mentioned in
the plaint as well as the tax paid receipts Exs.P.4 to 7, does
not disclose the property number and measurement and with
regard to the measurement is concerned, no proof is placed
on record. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to the
identity of the property is concerned and when the actual
measurement of the property is also not established by the
plaintiff, the question of granting the relief of permanent
injunction does not arise. Hence, I do not find any error
committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in
dismissing the suit in a case of bare injunction when the
appellant/plaintiff fails to prove the very identity of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45316
HC-KAR
property and hence no ground is made out to admit the
appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
