Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jayanna vs Sri. Amase on 8 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
RSA No. 866 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.866 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYANNA,
S/O. LATE CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT C/O. SHIVANNA,
BAGIVALU VILLAGE,
HALEKOTE HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. AMASE,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M S/O.LATE SHETTY,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SMT. SAKAMMA,
W/O KUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
K.R. NAGARA TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025,
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
RSA No. 866 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARSIPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.297/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOLENARASIPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Though
the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative
that the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties and the defendants are
interfering with his possession over the suit schedule
properties, declined to grant the relief of injunction by
answering issue No.3 in the negative and dismissed the suit.
The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
HC-KAR
and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and answered
point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative that the Trial Court was
justified in holding that the plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property and the Trial Court was justified
in holding that the defendants are interfering with his
possession and enjoyment of the property and the Trial Court
was justified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction, but answered point No.4 in the
negative that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court not
requires any interference and confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before
this Court.
3. This Court having considered the grounds urged in
the appeal memo, vide order dated 11.05.2023, framed the
following substantial question of law:
"Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court have committed an error refusing to grant an
order of injunction despite determining the factum
of possession of the property by the plaintiff?"
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error in dismissing the suit when the Court comes to the
conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession of the
suit schedule property and ought not to have dismissed the
suit. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts have
failed to take note of the fact that till the plaintiff was evicted
by due process of law, mere cancellation of the sale deed by
the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act' for short) is
not a ground to refuse the possessory relief sought by the
plaintiff and admittedly the defendants have parted with the
possession in the year 1990, while executing the general power
of attorney dated 13.12.1990. The learned counsel contend
that as against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
as well as the Deputy Commissioner, writ petition is filed before
this Court in W.P.No.7815/2024. The learned counsel submits
that an order of status quo is passed in the said writ petition
and hence it is very clear that possession is with the appellant
and the relief is sought for the relief of permanent injunction.
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
submits that W.P.No.7815/2024 may be called along with this
second appeal. The learned counsel contend that when the
sale has been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner and
confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, mere pendency of the
writ petition cannot be a ground to grant the relief of
permanent injunction in favour of the appellant.
6. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and also taking note of the
substantial question of law framed by this Court and also
considering the material available on record, the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that
possession is with the appellant. The learned counsel for
respondent No.1 not disputes the fact that no possession is
delivered in favour of the respondents under Section 5A of the
PTCL Act. The material available on record is very clear that an
application is filed before the concerned authority, but not yet
taken any decision to that effect. It is not in dispute that the
defendants have filed the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5 before the
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
HC-KAR
Trial Court. The findings of both the Courts are very clear that
the plaintiff is in possession of the property by answering issue
Nos.1 and 2 by the Trial Court and point Nos.1 to 3 by the First
Appellate Court, wherein it is categorically held that the
appellant is in possession of the property. When such being
the case, both the Courts ought to have granted the relief of
injunction in favour of the appellant, but committed an error
and hence the substantial question of law framed by this Court
requires to be answered in the affirmative that the factum of
possession lies with the appellant. However, it is made clear
that if the appellant is unsuccessful in W.P.No.7815/2024 and if
any process is taken before the concerned authority with
regard to the delivery of possession in favour of the
respondents, the order passed by this Court will not come in
the way and the very ground urged by the appellant before this
Court is that without due process of law, his possession cannot
be disturbed. There is a force in the contention of the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 that granting of relief of
permanent injunction in favour of the appellant shall not come
in the way of the respondents in taking the possession in favour
of the respondents, subject to the result of the writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:39661
HC-KAR
Hence, by answering the substantial question of law framed by
this Court in the affirmative, it is made clear that in case the
appellant is unsuccessful before this Court in the writ petition,
the granting of relief of permanent injunction by this Court will
not come in the way of the respondents taking the possession
in their favour and the same would be under due process of
law.
7. With these observations, the second appeal is
allowed by granting the relief of permanent injunction. The
Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly in the line of
above observation.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
