Karnataka High Court
Shri. Timmappa Govind Naik vs Shri. Narayan Parameshwar Naik on 23 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
RSA No. 100207 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100207 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SHRI TIMMAPPA GOVIND NAIK
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANDIGON VILLAGE-581334,
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI NARAYAN PARAMESHWAR NAIK
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC. NWKRTC EMPLOYEE (RETIRED),
R/O. BJATLA; DEKPOT,
NOW RESIDING AT ALIVEKODE-581334,
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
YASHAVANT 2. SMT. BALIYAMMA KOM MASTI MURKI
NARAYANKAR
AGE: 74 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
R/O. HANDIGON VILLAGE-581334,
Date: 2025.10.27
10:44:12 +0530
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTATA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
07.12.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUMTA,
IN R.A.NO.90/2007 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED IN O.S.NO.06/1998 DATED 10.08.2007, BY THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) AT KUMTA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
RSA No. 100207 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.6/1998 is before this Court
questioning the correctness of the dismissal of the suit as well as
the First Appeal.
3. The factual aspect relevant for disposal of this appeal
is that the plaintiff/appellant contends to be the owner in
possession of Survey No.130 measuring an extent of 11 gunta
out of 2 acre 33 guntas under a registered sale deed dated
04.09.1995 through GPA holder/Ganpathi Naik. It is his
contention that the property was owned by one Shankar
Purushottam Ankola. The plaintiff contended that as per the sale
deed, M.E.No.4393 dated 10.10.1995 came to be effected and he
is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit schedule
property was adjacent to the remaining properties bearing
Nos.129/1, 192/2, 128/2C and 128/2B belonging to the plaintiff.
At the time of the court proceedings, defendant No.1, in collusion
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
HC-KAR
with defendant No.2, obstructed the plaintiff and therefore, there
was a necessity for him to file the suit for injunction.
4. The defendants raised the contention that the claim
of the plaintiff over his property on the basis of the sale deed
executed by the GPA holder itself is fallacious and in fact the
alleged GPA holder of Shankar Purushottam Ankola had died in
the year 1976, and therefore, the alleged GPA, which was
allegedly executed in the year 1994, is a fake and bogus one.
Therefore, they contended that the plaintiff has no locus-standi
to claim any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property
and as such his claim for injunction is not sustainable in law. On
the basis of the above contentions, appropriate issues were
framed by the Trial Court and evidence was led. The Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any
relief on the ground that the alleged claim of the plaintiff over
the suit schedule property emanates from a sale deed, which in
itself is non-est. The Trial Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 holds
as below.
"36. It was the submission of the learned Counsel
for the Plaintiff, one Sri. Shankar Purushottam, has
executed a G.P.A. in favour of one Sri. Ganapati
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
HC-KAR
Jattappa Naik, as per Ex.P16. But, the very aspect of
execution of the said G.P.A. ahs been denied and
disputed by the Defendants as the said Sri. Shankar
Purushottam, who is also called as Shankar
Purushottam Ankola expired on 23-7-1976. In this
regard, the 1st Defendant has produced the Certificate
of Death as per Ex.D33. On consideration, the said
G.P.A. came to be executed on 30-4-1994. In this
regard, it was the submission of the learned defence
Counsel, subsequent to the death of the said Sri.
Shankar Purushottam Ankola, the Plaintiff in collusion
with his relative by name Sri. Ganapati Jattappa Naik,
has created the G.P.A. as well as the Sale Deed.
37. It is forthcoming in the cross-examination of
PW-1, the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam, and the said
Sri. Shankar Purushottam Ankola, are one and the
same. In this regard, the learned defence Counsel has
pointed out the relevant portion of the evidence of PW-
1. As a rebuttal, the Plaintiff has not produced any
supporting documents to the effect, that the said Sri.
Shankar Purushottam Ankola, expired only subsequent
to 30-4-1994."
5. Thus, it is evident that the claim of the plaintiff based
on the GPA as per Ex.P-16 was proved to be not maintainable in
view of the death certificate as per Ex.D-33. On that count, the
court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not
entitled for any relief unless he establishes his title to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
HC-KAR
property. It is pertinent to note that the defence mentioned in
detail in paragraphs No.8 and 10 of the judgment of the trial
Court in following words:
"8. It is the defence, through a nearest relative by
name Sri. Ganapati Jattappa Naik, the Plaintiff has got
created a General Power of Attorney and on the basis
he has got created a Sale Deed. It is also the defence,
the said Sri, Shankar Purushottam Ankola, has not
executed any G.P.A., in favour of the said Sri.
Ganapati Jattappa Naik, as he expired during 1976 and
that on 4-9-1995, he was not living. It is also the
defence, after knowing the transfer of Revenue
Entries, one Sri Suresh Shankar Ankola, made an
application before the concerned authorities. The
Defendant has denied and disputed the execution of
the Sale Deed dtd., 4-9-1995. Accordingly, contended
the Plaintiff has no manner of right, title, interest and
possession in respect of the property.
10. It is their defence, neither the Plaintiff nor the
said Sri. Shankar Ankola, never continued to be in
possession and enjoyment of the said property and
that the Plaintiff has no locus-standi to question the
Phot Hissa before the Court. The Defendants have
specifically denied the genuineness and the validity of
the General Power of Attorney as well as the
Registered Sale Deed Dtd., 4-9-1995. By denying all
the other contention taken up in the plaint with specific
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14166
HC-KAR
defence and by relying upon necessary documents the
Defendants prayed for DISMISSAL of the suit."
6. Thus, a suit for injunction simplicitor was not
maintainable when the defendants have specifically denied the
locus standi of the plaintiff. On the basis of such contentions, the
Courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not
entitled for the relief of injunction unless he establishes his right,
title and interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore, in
that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises
and as such the appeal is devoid of any merits and stands
dismissed.
7. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration
and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:PA
