Karnataka High Court
Smt. Parvathamma vs Ganesh Kumar on 27 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
RSA No. 720 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.720 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE B.S.CHANDRASHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. TEJASWINI B.C.,
D/O LATE B.S.CHANDRASHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. YOGESH S/O LATE B.S.CHANDRASHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O NEAR VALLUVAR KALYANA MANTAPA
TARIKERE ROAD, BHADRVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. GANESH KUMAR
S/O GUNASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KUDLIGERE HOBLI
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
RSA No. 720 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.10.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.123/2014 ON THE FILE OF C/C.
IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.
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 and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellants. Though, the respondent is
served, he has remained unrepresented.
2. This second 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 while seeking the relief of permanent injunction
is that plaintiff's grand-mother Smt. Rajamma,
W/o.Chinnaswamy is the grantee of agricultural land to an
extent of 1 acre, 13 guntas in Sy.No.54/42 of Devarahalli
Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, during the year 1999 i.e., dated
01.01.1999. It is contended that grand-mother died on
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
19.10.2012 and after that, property is enjoyed by son
Gunashekar, the father of the plaintiff and plaintiff and other
family members, being successors of late Rajamma. The
plaintiff is in possession and cultivation and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property growing coconut and arecanut and also
doing poultry farm and there is gowdown in the land. The
defendants having no right, title or interest over the suit
schedule property made an attempt to interfere with possession
on 08.03.2014. The defendants have uttered that they have
purchased the property under the agreement and they will
dispossess the plaintiff from the property by using force and
without any other alternative, filed the suit for the relief of
permanent injunction.
4. The defendants appeared and filed written
statement contending that Rajamma along with her sons
Gunashekar, Thangamani and her daughter-in-laws Rajamani,
wife of late Nagendra, Malleswari, wife of Gunashekara and her
grand-sons of Rajamma i.e., Ganesh Kumar (plaintiff),
Prashanth Kumar entered into sale agreement with
B.S.Chandrasekhar, who is the husband of defendant No.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 to sell the suit schedule
property for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,54,000/- and after
receiving a sum of Rs.8,29,000/-, they have executed a
registered sale agreement in favour of B.S. Chandrasekhar on
22.09.2010. In terms of the agreement, they agreed to execute
registered sale deed in favour of B.S. Chandrasekhar within 35
months from the date of agreement by receiving the balance
sale consideration amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. But, contend that
said B.S. Chandrasekhar was put in possession of the plaint
schedule property. After the sale agreement, said
B.S.Chandrasekhar and his wife and children made all efforts
and invested the amount of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs and planted
coconut trees and also areca plants and he was ready and
willing to perform his part of contract. But, in the meanwhile,
the said B.S. Chandrasekhar passed away on 16.10.2013
leaving behind the defendants as legal heirs. Even, Rajamma
also passed away on 19.10.2012. After the death of Rajamma,
the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Rajamma failed to perform
their part of contract. Hence, the defendants issued legal notice
and also took the contention that suit schedule property is
granted under SC/SC quota. It is also contended that
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
defendants are in possession of the property and they have
reserved their right to file the suit for specific performance.
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
plaintiff and defendants, framed the issues and allowed the
parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as
P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P23. Though, the defendant No.3 got
examined as D.W.1, but not produced any document and did
not tender for cross-examination.
6. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
parties, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as 'affirmative' and issue
No.3 as 'negative' with regard to suit itself is not maintainable
without seeking the relief of declaration and granted the relief
of permanent injunction in detail discussing the same in
paragraph Nos.14 and 15. Having considered the documents of
Exs.P1 to 23, the same discloses that plaintiff is in possession
of the property and the contention that without seeking the
relief of declaration cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction
was also considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.15 and
comes to the conclusion that though defendants claim that they
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
are in possession of the property, nothing is placed on record to
establish their possession.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.5/2023 and the First Appellate Court also having
considered the grounds has formulated the points whether the
learned trial Judge was justified in holding that respondent is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property, whether the
learned trial Judge is justified in decreeing the suit of the
respondent granting the relief of permanent injunction and
whether it requires interference. The First Appellate Court also
having reassessed the material available on record, particularly
with regard to possession is concerned, taken note of the
documents which have been produced before the Trial Court
and discussed the same in paragraph No.17 and also taken
note of the very contention of the defendants with regard to
sale agreement is concerned. At the time of filing of the suit
and written statement, no doubt, suit is not filed for the relief
of specific performance, now, the counsel appearing for the
appellants would submit that suit is filed for the relief of specific
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
performance and the same is granted and now the second
appeal is also pending before this Court. It is also contended
that the First Appellate Court also having considered both oral
and documentary evidence, taken note of the fact that property
was granted in favour of grand-mother and thereafter,
transferred to the name of the plaintiff and reconsidered both
oral and documentary evidence i.e., the documents Exs.P1 to
P23 i.e., 3 electricity bills, electricity receipts, legal notice,
saguvali chit, survey sketch and RTC and confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court.
8. The counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error in decreeing the suit, particularly considering the
document of Ex.P23 which is standing in the name of
Smt.Rajamma, grand-mother of the plaintiff and not in the
name of the plaintiff and merely on the basis of Exs.P14 to
P16-electricity bills and Exs.P19 to P20-saguvali chit and survey
sketch, granted the relief of permanent intention and failed to
consider both oral and documentary evidence and the very
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
reasoning amounts to perversity. Hence, this Court has to
frame substantial question of law.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and
also on perusal of material available on record, the main
contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants is
that there was sale agreement of the year 2010 and substantial
payment is also made. But, the fact is that as on the date of
filing of the suit in O.S.No.123/2014, no appeal was filed and
only in the written statement, defence was taken that yet to file
a suit for specific performance. But, claims that they are in
possession, consequent upon the sale agreement which is
registered. In order to substantiate the said claim that
appellants/defendants are in possession of the property,
nothing is placed on record. The counsel also not disputes the
fact that no document is placed before the Court. Apart from
that, although specific defence was taken by the defendants
that they are in possession of the property and also examined
D.W.1, but D.W.1 has not tendered himself for cross
examination. When such being the case, in the absence of any
documentary proof with regard to possession of the appellants,
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
consequent upon the sale agreement and merely because suit
was filed for the relief of specific performance and the same
being granted, it will not prove the factum of possession. The
Trial Court in detail discussed the same in paragraph Nos.14
and 15 and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of
both oral and documentary evidence in detail taken note of oral
and documentary evidence available on record and confirmed
the judgment of the Trial Court. When such being the case,
when the document stands in the name of the plaintiff to
establish the possession and it is settled law also that as on the
date of filing the suit, plaintiff must establish possession and
possession has been established and though defence was taken
that defendants are in possession, the same is not
substantiated by placing any cogent evidence before the Court.
Hence, I do not find any error on the part of Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court in considering the material available on
record and I do not find any perversity in the finding of both
the Courts and both question of fact and question of law is also
is considered. Therefore, no grounds to admit the appeal and
frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of
CPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42560
HC-KAR
10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
