Karnataka High Court
Smt B Savitha vs Sri Kumar on 17 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
RSA No. 651 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.651 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. B. SAVITHA,
W/O SRI JAYARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571434.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KUMAR,
S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2. SRI RAMACHANDRE GOWDA,
COURT OF S/O LATE SRI BETTE GOWDA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
3. SRI RAMANNA,
S/O LATE SRI BETTE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT KERETHONNUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571434.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
RSA No. 651 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2025
PASSED IN RA NO.52/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.118/2012 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.
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 appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court is that she had purchased the suit schedule
property from one Kempegowda in the year 2009. Having
purchased the property, she obtained the licence in terms of
Ex.P.8 and constructed the house over the suit schedule
property. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of
his arguments would contend that the documents at Exs.P.2 to
8 clearly discloses that tax assessment lists, house tax patta
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
HC-KAR
and receipt book and 3 tax paid receipts are produced and even
inspite of all these documents are produced, the Trial Court
committed an error in dismissing the suit for the relief of
permanent injunction. The learned counsel submits that the
documents, which have been produced by the defendants
themselves i.e., Exs.D.2, 3 and 4 clearly discloses that an
appeal is filed when the khatha was made in favour of the
plaintiff, in terms of Ex.D.3. An endorsement was issued by
the Grama Panchayath in terms of Ex.D.4 and endorsement in
terms of Ex.D.5 dated 27.11.2013 and the said appeal was also
dismissed. Inspite of those documents clearly establishes that
challenge was made with regard to the khatha made in favour
of the plaintiff, the Trial Court committed an error.
4. The Trial Court having considered the material
available on record, comes to the conclusion that when the
plaintiff had purchased the property, the same is not an
alienated property and the sale deed does not disclose anything
about in which survey number the suit schedule property was
carved out. An appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed
and with regard to this, discussion was made in paragraph
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
HC-KAR
No.22. In paragraph No.23, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that the document Ex.D.4 discloses that khatha
Nos.445 and 446 stands in the name of Kempegowda, son of
Kempegowda except the tax paid receipt, other documents are
not available. Further endorsement dated 27.11.2023 got
issued by PDO, T.S. Chathra Grama Panchayath, Pandavapura,
which is marked as Ex.D.5, discloses that, not available survey
numbers documents of Kerethonnur village. The Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that when the defendants appeared
and filed the written statement denying the very title of the
vendor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit,
since there is a serious dispute with regard to the title of the
vendor of the plaintiff and also referred the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of ANATHULLA SUDHAKAR v.
BUCCHI REDDY AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC
2033, wherein the Apex Court made an observation that when
there is a cloud on the title of the property, ought to have
sought for the relief of declaration and hence dismissed the
suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.52/2022. The First
Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on
record, in detail discussed both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record as well as even considered the recitals of the
document of sale deed and so also the evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.3. In paragraph No.21, in detail discussed with
regard to the extent of land in the said survey number and also
taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 and
the very plaintiff counsel put the suggestion to D.W.1 and the
same is extracted in paragraph No.21.5. The learned counsel
for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court paragraph
No.21.6, wherein discussion was made that D.W.1 has
categorically admitted that he did not question the sale deed.
Further, it is elicited in his cross-examination that the officials
of T.S. Chathra Grama Panchayath have mutated the khatha in
favour of the plaintiff on the basis of Ex.P.1. The learned
counsel for the appellant submits that inspite of it, the First
Appellate Court comes to a wrong conclusion that in order to
substantiate the facts of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not
produced any mother documents pertaining to the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
HC-KAR
property as narrated in the plaint as well as Ex.P.1 contents.
Ex.P.1 contents are also taken note of by the First Appellate
Court in paragraph No.22 and the same also except disclosing
that the vendor's property was an ancestral property, no details
are given and elaborate discussion was made by the First
Appellate Court having taken into consideration the documents
of exhibit 'D' series and the plaintiff documents and when the
plaintiff did not produce any khatha extract of his vendor and
also the plaintiff, comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court
has not committed any error. The First Appellate Court also
taken note of where the complicated question of title involved
would be examined only in a title suit for declaration and
consequential relief and not in a suit for bare injunction and
hence dismissed the appeal.
6. Having considered the reasoning given by the Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court, it is the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts have
committed an error in dismissing the suit and confirming the
same and in a suit for injunction, cannot resolve the title
dispute and only to take note of the documents, which have
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
HC-KAR
been produced before the Court as on the date of filing the suit,
whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule
property and whether there is an interference or dispossession
by the defendant and same is not considered.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also on perusal of the material available on record, when
the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, the
plaintiff has to establish her possession. In order to prove the
factum of her possession is concerned, no documents of khatha
extracts are produced before the Court either the khatha
belongs to the vendor of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff
except production of tax paid receipts. The defendants
appeared and filed the written statement denying the very title
of the plaintiff and contended that the suit schedule property
comes within the schedule property of the defendants and
when such defence is taken and when the title is disputed, the
Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that in view of the
judgment of Anathulla Sudhakar case, when the cloud is on
the title, ought to have sought for the relief of declaration and
comprehensive suit is not filed and also when the possession is
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
HC-KAR
not established by the plaintiff, the same is considered by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in detail extracting the
recitals of the document of Ex.P.1 sale deed, which the plaintiff
relies upon. Nowhere in the sale deed, it is mentioned that the
said property is carved out of particular survey number. On the
other hand, the documents which have been produced by the
defendants clearly discloses that the khatha stands in the name
of defendants. Though the learned counsel for the appellant
contend that Exs.D.4, 5 and 6 discloses that an endorsement is
issued, but such endorsement will not create any right in favour
of the plaintiff.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
also brought to the notice of this Court Ex.D.3, proceedings in
Appeal No.58/2010-11 and contend that the appeal filed by the
defendants was dismissed. The same cannot be a ground to
come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the
suit schedule property. It is important to note that when the
plaintiff questioned the khatha standing in the name of the
defendants by filing an appeal, the same was dismissed. When
the challenge was made before the Deputy Director of Land
NC: 2025:KHC:41513
HC-KAR
Records by the plaintiff for fixation of hadhbasth, the same was
also dismissed coming to the conclusion that the said sale deed
made in favour of the plaintiff is not carved out of Sy.No.357
and this fact is also taken note of by the Trial Court. When
such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the
second appeal and frame any substantial question of law and
there is no merit in the appeal.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
