[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
R Nagaraj vs R Raja Babu on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
RFA No. 2793 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024
RFA No. 2788 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2793 OF 2024 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2785 OF 2024
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2788 OF 2024
IN RFA No. 2793/2024
BETWEEN:
1. R. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A NO. 177, RADHA NILAYA
2ND BLOCK, AKSHAY NAGAR
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560016.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
(BY SRI.SRIKANTH N.V, ADVOCATE)
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SRI. R. RAJASHEKAR
S/O RAMANNA @ RAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A NO. 1/1, SHREE NIVASA
1ST MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, AKSHYANAGAR
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560016.
2. THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK
BANASWADI BRANCH
NO. 45/81, B. CHANNASANDRA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
RFA No. 2793 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024
RFA No. 2788 of 2024
HC-KAR
5TH MAIN ROAD, KASTURI NAGAR
BANASWADI
NEXT TO S.R. KALYAN MANTAP
BENGALURU - 560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANTH KUMAR .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C. CHANASPUR, ADVOCATE
FOR R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2024
PASSED IN OS.NO.1963/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO. 2785/2024
BETWEEN:
1. R. NAGARAJ
S/O RAMANNA @ RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO. 177, RADHA NILAYA
2ND BLOCK, AKSHAY NAGAR
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH .N.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. R. RAJA
S/O RAMANNA @ RAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO. 37, 4TH MAIN
8TH CROSS, SIR MV NAGAR
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 016.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
RFA No. 2793 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024
RFA No. 2788 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK
BANASWADI BRANCH
NO. 45/81, B CHANNASANDRA
5TH MAIN ROAD, KASTURI NAGAR
BANASWADI, NEXT TO S.R. KALYAN MANTAP
BENGALURU - 560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANTH KUMAR .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C. CHANASPUR, ADVOCATE
FOR R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.07.2024 PASSED IN OS
NO.1962/2024 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO. 2788/2024
BETWEEN:
1. R. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO. 177, RADHA NILAYA
2ND BLOCK, AKSHAY NAGAR
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH .N.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. R. RAJA BABU
S/O RAMANNA @ RAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
RFA No. 2793 of 2024
C/W RFA No. 2785 of 2024
RFA No. 2788 of 2024
HC-KAR
2ND BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, AKSHAY NAGAR
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560016.
2. THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK
BANASWADI BRANCH, NO. 45/81
B. CHANNASANDRA, 5TH MAIN ROAD
KASTURI NAGAR, BANASWADI
NEXT TO S.R. KALYAN MANTAP
BENGALURU - 560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANTH KUMAR .C, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR C. CHANASPUR, ADVOCATE
FOR R2;)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.07.2024 PASSED IN OS
NO.1961/2024 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel on record, the appeals are
heard finally.
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
2. The ranks of the parties are referred as they are
ranked before the Trial Court.
3. These three appeals are preferred by the
appellant, who is the full brother of the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.1961/2024, O.S.No.1962/2024 and
O.S.No.1963/2024, calling in question the judgments and
decrees passed in the said suits. The suits were instituted
by the plaintiffs-donees seeking return of original title
deeds, which had been pledged with the second
respondent-Bank by the present appellant. The plaintiffs
contended that they had cleared the outstanding loan
amounts and were, therefore, entitled to the return of the
original documents.
4. Since all the three appeals arise out of
inter-connected transactions and involve a common
question of law and facts, particularly disputes inter se
between full brothers, this Court has taken up all the three
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
appeals together for final disposal by this common
judgment.
5. Facts leading to the case are as under;
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1961/2024,
O.S.No.1962/2024 and O.S.No.1963/2024 instituted suits
against the National Co-operative Bank seeking return of
original title documents pertaining to the respective suit
schedule properties. It is the uniform case of the plaintiffs
that the present appellant-R.Nagaraj acquired the suit
schedule properties under a registered Sale Deed dated
24.01.2006 from one Shashikala and also obtained
another property under a Gift Deed dated 19.12.2005
executed by his mother.
6. It is further pleaded that the appellant thereafter
executed a registered Gift Deed dated 12.12.2017 in
favour of his father Ramanna @ Ram Reddy, conveying all
the aforesaid properties. The father, in turn, executed
three separate Gift Deeds dated 09.08.2018 in favour of
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
his three sons/plaintiffs, thereby gifting the respective
properties to them.
7. In terms of the express clauses contained in the
Gift Deeds, the Donee's were authorized to discharge the
loans raised by the appellant in respect of the suit
schedule properties and to secure release of the original
title documents from the Bank. Pursuant thereto, each of
the plaintiffs cleared the outstanding loan amounts and
instituted independent suits seeking return of the original
documents from the Bank on the strength of the Gift
Deeds executed in their favour.
8. All the three suits were tried independently . After
full-fledged trial and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed
all the three suits and directed the defendant - Bank to
return all the original title documents to the plaintiffs.
Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the present
appellant has preferred these three appeals.
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel for
respondent No.1-plaintiffs, and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Bank.
10. The following points arise for consideration in all
the three appeals:
(i) Whether the appellant has locus standi to
challenge the judgments and
decrees passed in O.S.No.1961/2024,
O.S.No.1962/2024 and O.S.No.1963/2024?
(ii) Whether the judgments and decrees passed
by the Trial Court warrant interference by
this Court in appeal?
(iii) What order?
Findings on Point Nos.(i) and (ii) :-
11. On a careful and closer examination of the title
documents placed on record, it is manifest that the
plaintiffs in all the three suits trace their title in respect of
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
the suit schedule properties under registered Gift Deeds
executed by their father, Ramanna @ Ram Reddy, dated
09.08.2018. These Gift Deeds are stated to have been
executed subsequent to the appellant herein having
conveyed the very same properties in favour of his father
under registered Gift Deeds dated 12.12.2017.
12. The appellant has disputed the validity and legal
efficacy of the said Gift Deeds and would contend that he
has instituted comprehensive suits questioning the same,
which are stated to be pending adjudication in
O.S.No.26439/2017 and O.S.No.26065/2019. However, in
all the three suits giving rise to the present appeals, the
Trial Court has adverted in detail to the Gift Deeds
executed by the appellant in favour of his father, which
are marked at Exs.P.4 & P.5, being the registered Gift
Deeds dated 12.12.2017, and has also taken due
cognizance of the subsequent Gift Deeds executed by the
father in favour of his three sons, namely the plaintiffs.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
13. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to
extract the relevant covenants contained in the Gift Deeds
dated 09.08.2018 executed by Ramanna @ Ram Reddy in
favour of his three sons. Paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the said
Gift Deeds, which have a direct bearing on the controversy
in issue, are reproduced hereinbelow:
"2. That the title of the Donor to the property
hereby conveyed is good, marketable and subsisting
and that it is his self acquired property and that he
has the power to Gift the same and that there is no
impediment for this Gift under any law, decree,
order or contract.
3. That all rates, taxes and cess relating to
the schedule property have been paid by the Donor
up to date.
4. That the Donor shall whenever so required
by the Donee, do and executed all such acts, deeds
and things for more fully and perfectly assuring the
title of the Donee to the property hereby Gifted.
5. That the Donor has this day handed over
the peaceful vacant possession the Donee is liberty
to pay liabilities and to get release all the original
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
documents, pertaining to Schedule mentioned
property which were in the custody of the National
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Banaswadi, Bangalore, after
discharging entire mortgage amount along with
accrued interest if any. Further the Donee is also
authorized to obtain the original documents from
the said Bank.
6. That the Donee has accepted the Gift."
(emphasis supplied)
14. On a careful reading of the extracted covenants
contained in the registered Gift Deeds dated 09.08.2018,
executed by Ramanna @ Ram Reddy in favour of his three
sons, who are the plaintiffs in the respective suits, it is
abundantly clear that the plaintiffs are asserting their right
and title to the suit schedule properties solely on the
strength of the said registered Gift Deeds. The covenants
unequivocally disclose that, pursuant to the authority
conferred under the Gift Deeds, all the three plaintiffs
have discharged the loans earlier raised by the appellant
herein by pledging the original title documents with
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
respondent No.2-Bank. In terms of Clause-5 of the
registered Gift Deeds, the plaintiffs were expressly
authorised to secure release of the original title deeds
upon clearance of the loan liabilities. It is in exercise of
this contractual and proprietary right flowing from the Gift
Deeds that the plaintiffs instituted three independent suits
seeking return of the original title documents from the
Bank.
15. The Trial Court, upon due appreciation of the
documentary evidence, more particularly the registered
Gift Deeds executed by the appellant in favour of his
father dated 12.12.2017 and the subsequent Gift Deeds
executed by the father in favour of the plaintiffs dated
09.08.2018, has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs have
established a lawful entitlement to seek return of the
original title documents.
16. The appellant has candidly admitted that he has
already instituted comprehensive civil suits questioning the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
Gift Deeds and asserting his alleged rights in
O.S.No.26439/2017 and O.S.No.26065/2019, which are
presently pending adjudication before the competent Civil
Court. Mere return of the original title documents to the
plaintiffs, who claim under registered Gift Deeds and have
admittedly cleared the loan liability, does not divest the
appellant of any substantive right nor does it render the
pending suits infructuous. Unless and until the appellant
succeeds in establishing his right, title and interest in the
properties by impeaching the registered Gift Deeds dated
12.12.2017 and 09.08.2018, he cannot claim any vested
or enforceable right so as to question the decrees passed
in the present suits.
17. This Court finds that the Trial Court has
meticulously adverted to the chain of title and the relevant
covenants of the registered documents and has rightly
exercised its jurisdiction in directing respondent No.2-
Bank to return the original title deeds to the plaintiffs. The
findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
perversity, arbitrariness or misapplication of law. The
appellant has failed to demonstrate any material infirmity
or legal error warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered view that the appellant lacks locus standi
to assail the decrees passed in the three suits instituted by
the donee's seeking return of original documents.
Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief
in these appeals. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are
answered in the Negative.
19. Point No.(iii):- In the light of the findings
recorded on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) All the three appeals are hereby
dismissed.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
(ii) It is clarified that the judgments and
decrees passed by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.1961/2024, O.S.No.1962/2024 and
O.S.No.1963/2024, as affirmed by this Court,
shall not operate as a bar to the appellant in
prosecuting and substantiating his rights,
title and interest, if any, in the
pending suits bearing O.S.No.26439/2017 and
O.S.No.26065/2019, in accordance with law.
(iii) All rival contentions of the parties are
kept open to be urged and decided in the
aforesaid pending suits.
(iv) The return of original title documents
by respondent No.2-Bank in favour of the
respective plaintiffs pursuant to the decrees
under challenge shall be subject to the final
outcome of the proceedings pending in
O.S.No.26439/2017 and O.S.No.26065/2019.
(v) In view of the findings recorded on
Point Nos.(i) and (ii), all the interlocutory
applications, namely I.A.Nos.1/2024 and
2/2024 in RFA No.2793/2024; I.A.Nos.2/2024
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2865
HC-KAR
and 3/2024 in RFA No.2785/2024; and
I.A.Nos.2/2024 and 3/2024 in RFA
No.2788/2024, stand rejected.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
