- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.624 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT THIMMAKKA, W/O LATE BYATAPPA, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRS SRI RAMAIAH, S/O LATE BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT KODLIGHATTA, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK - 572 114. 3 . SMT LAKKAMMA, W/O MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NAGATHIHALLI, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK - 572 217. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI LINGAPPA, S/O LATE CHANNAVEERAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS R3 TO R9 Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 1. SRI SOMASHEKHARAIAH, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, MAJOR, 2 . SRI NATARAJU, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, MAJOR, 3 . SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O LATE LINGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRs RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 4 . SMT. RUDRANAMMA, W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5 . SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5 ARE R/AT HULLEKERE - 572 229, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK. 6 . SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, W/O SREEKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT VIGNASANTHE - 572 224, TIPTUR TALUK. 7 . SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O BORALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KARIKERE, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI - 572 224, TIPTUR TALUK. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 8 . SMT. CHANDRAMMA, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT MUGANAYAKANAKOTE - 572 222, NOW R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY. 9 . SMT. JAYASHEELA, W/O VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT SAMPIGE - 572 225, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI B.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.S. RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, ADV FOR R1,R2, R4-R9; V/O DATED 12.03.2025 R1 & R2 ARE LRs OF DECEASED R3] THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 18.11.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.380/2009 (OLD NO.50/2009) ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2003 PASSED IN O.S.NO.143/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., TIPTUR. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 JUDGMENT Challenging judgement and decree dated 18.11.2011 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Tiptur, in R.A.no.380/2009 (old no.50/2009), dismissing appeal and confirming judgment and decree dated 08.04.2003 passed by Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Tiptur, in O.S.no.143/1992, this appeal is filed. 2. Brief facts as stated are, appellants were legal representatives of original plaintiff in O.S.no.143/1992 filed for declaring plaintiffs as absolute owner in possession of property bearing Sy.no.9/2 (1st block) measuring 4 Acres situated at Kodihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) and for permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents, etc., from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property. 3. In plaint, it was stated, on 26.07.1976, Tahsildar of Tiptur Taluk had issued grant certificate bearing no.DCR.15/74- 75 in favour of plaintiff - Thimmakka. Thereafter, their names were mutated in revenue records by MR no.18/75-76, since then, plaintiff was paying tax to Government. Thus, he was absolute owner in physical possession and enjoyment of suit - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 property. It was stated, plaintiff cleared shrubs and spent huge amount for making it cultivable. It was stated, defendants were strangers without right, title, interest or possession over suit property interfered with her possession. Hence, suit was filed. 4. On appearance, defendant no.2 filed written statement, adopted by defendants no.1 and 3, denying plaint averments about plaintiff being owner in possession of suit property and alleging suit was filed without cause of action. It was specifically contended, total extent of Sy.no.9/2 of Kodihalli Village was 16 Acres and 2 guntas, in which 12 Acres were disposed of by Government and he was in possession of remaining 4 Acres bounded on East by land of Shivananjappa, West by land of Ramaiah, Siddalaiah and Buddha Thimmayya, North by land of Nanjamma and South by land of Siddagangamma and Chennabasavaiah, since 1977-78 and his name was entered in revenue records. He stated, plaintiff had not stated proper boundaries and even if he was granted land, same was elsewhere. It was stated, suit was erroneously filed mentioning boundaries of defendant’s property and that plaintiff was never in possession of suit property. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 5. It was stated, grant certificate of plaintiff was not in respect of land in Sy.no.9/2 and order dated 08.05.1992 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur in RHMCR no.7/1992-23, for maintaining status quo in respect of property recognised possession of defendant no.1. It was stated, without any right or basis for boundaries suit would not be maintainable. On above contentions, defendants sought for dismissing suit. 6. Based on contentions of both parties, trial Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves her ownership over suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves her possession over suit schedule property as on the date of institution of suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with her possession over suit schedule property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction as prayed? 5. What order or decree? 7. Since plaintiff died during pendency of suit, legal representatives ('LR', for short) were brought on record. During trial, one of LRs and two others were examined as PWs.1 to 3. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 Exhibits P1 to P20 were got marked. In rebuttal, defendant no.1 examined himself and two others as DWs.1 to 3. Exhibits D1 to D22 were got marked. 8. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 to 4 in negative and issue no.5 by dismissing suit. Aggrieved plaintiff filed R.A.no.380/2009 on various grounds, based on which first appellate Court framed following points: 1. Whether the appellant proves that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that plaintiff failed to prove her possession over suit schedule property within the given boundaries in the suit schedule and thereby the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Judge is erroneous? 2. What order or decree? 9. On consideration, it answered point no.1 in negative and point no.2 by dismissing appeal. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiffs filed present appeal. 10. Sri S.Nagaraja, learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted, challenging concurrent but erroneous judgment and decrees passed by trial and Appellate Court in plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction, appeal was filed. It was submitted, dismissal of suit and appeal, were without appreciation of material on record. It was submitted, to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 establish ownership over suit property, plaintiff produced Ex.P2 - grant certificate, Exs.P11 and P12 - Patta books, Ex.P18 - Hiduvali certificate, to establish possession produced, RTC Extract, Records of Rights, Tax paid receipts as Exs.P5 to P10, P13 to P16 respectively. On other hand, defendants did not produce title documents or stated about manner of acquisition of title over suit property. 11. It was submitted, to establish possession, plaintiff deposed as PW.1 and examined adjacent land owners as PWs.2 and 3, who not only deposed as per plaint but also sustained cross-examination. However, defendants failed to examine adjacent land owners to establish possession. Moreover, DWs.2 and 3 admitted, they were unaware of description of properties and not acquainted with facts of case. It was submitted, despite holding suit property was granted to plaintiff, both Courts erred in concluding Ex.P2 was unreliable merely due to unattested overwriting, ignoring that boundaries mentioned were in conformity with Ex.P3 - sketch, and by observing that description in suit schedule was that of defendants' property, to dismiss suit. It was submitted, both Courts failed to appreciate - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 Ex.D1 was decree in O.S.no.135/1987 filed by defendants against third parties and therefore would not bind plaintiff. 12. It was submitted, first appellate Court failed to re- appreciate evidence and dismissed appeal by simply concurring with trial Court findings. It was submitted, when Ex.P3 contained boundaries and extent of suit property, reliance on Ex.D6 - Sketch, which was irrelevant, led to erroneous conclusion. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead by LRs) and Ors., reported in 2008 SCC OnLine SC 550, held: "Re: Question (i) 13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 13.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction." 13. On above grounds, learned counsel sought to propose following substantial questions of law and sought for allowing appeal: (A) Whether both Courts erred in disbelieving Exs- P2 and P3? (B) Whether both Courts erred in relying on Ex.D1 - judgment and decree in OS no.135/1987 & Exs.D3 and D4 - judgment and decree in OS no.8/1992, without noting that plaintiff was not party to them and therefore they would not bind her? (C) Whether both Courts erred in dismissing suit even when defendant admitted plaintiff was granted 4 Acres in Sy.no.9/2? (D) Whether both Courts erred in dismissing suit on ground that boundaries of suit property did not tally with Grant Certificate etc. when other documents were consistent with suit schedule? 14. On other hand, Sri BR Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for Sri KS Ramaswamy Iyengar, learned - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 counsel for defendants opposed appeal on ground that it was against concurrent findings. It was submitted, suit claim was based on Ex.P2 - grant certificate, which was held by both Courts to be inconsistent with regard to date, extent and boundaries, and unreliable due to absence of attestation of overwriting. Consequently, plaintiff’s claim under grant would be without justification. Even plaintiff's claim about witnesses supporting their case was untenable, as trial Court observed PWs.2 and 3 contradicted each other. Both Courts rightly held, stay granted by Deputy Commissioner (Ex.D22) was observing possession of suit property was with defendant no.1. It was submitted, plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that boundary description of suit property was inaccurate. 15. Apart from above, learned counsel submitted plaintiff had initially filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. And defendant had specifically denied plaintiff’s title and possession. In appeal, plaintiff filed IA no.III for withdrawal of prayer for declaration of title, which was allowed. Consequently, suit for bare injunction would not be maintainable. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration and sought dismissal of appeal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 16. In reply, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted, as per ratio in Anathula Sudhakar’s case (supra), bare denial of title by defendants, without leading evidence to substantiate his title or establishing cloud on plaintiff’s title, would not mandate prayer for declaration and suit for bare injunction would be maintainable. Therefore, withdrawal of prayer for declaration of title, would not be fatal to this appeal. 17. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree and record. 18. This appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff in suit filed for declaration of her title and possession over suit property and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession over it. 19. Main ground urged herein is erroneous finding about Ex.P2 being unreliable and non-appreciation of material on record, i.e. grant certificate, Patta Books and Hiduvali Certificates Exs.P2, P11, P12 and P18 duly corroborated by RTC Extract, RoRs and Tax Paid Receipts - Exs.P5 to P10, P13 to P16. Especially when denial of plaintiff’s title and possession was without producing documents of title or disclosing manner - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 of acquisition of right, title or interest over suit property and when defendant admitted about grant of 4 Acres of land to plaintiff in Sy.no.9/2. Substantial questions of law proposed are alleging perversity for ignoring Ex.P2 by illegally treating it as unacceptable; treating Exs.D1, D3 and D4, which are unacceptable as acceptable evidence, ignoring admission about grant of 4 Acres in Sy.no.9/2 to plaintiff and erroneous conclusion that boundaries of suit property do not tally with Ex.P2. 20. Insofar as maintainability of suit for bare injunction, Hon’ble Supreme Court in TV Ramakrishna Reddy v. M. Mallappa, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 135, has held such suit would be maintainable only where plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud. It is contended here that there is bare denial and without even disclosing manner of acquisition of title, unlike plaintiff, who produced Ex.P2 - grant certificate, Exs.P11 and P12 - Patta Books, Ex.P18 - Hiduvali Certificate for title and RTC Extracts, RoRs and Tax Paid Receipts - Exs.P5 to P10 and P13 to P16 to establish possession. 21. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court observed dispute was not about grant of 4 Acres of land to - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 plaintiff in Sy.no.9/2, but about its identity and to establish same, plaintiff produced Ex.P2 - P18. On Ex.P2, it noted unattested overwriting or correction of block number, survey number as well as boundaries on eastern and western side. Due to lack of explanation, it held Ex.P2 to be a materially altered document and unreliable. Likewise, it noted that there was no mention of block and survey number in Ex.P4 and boundaries mentioned i.e., East by Sy.no.15; West by Block-II, Sy.no.9/2; North and South by Private Lands, substantially differed in comparison with Ex.P18 and plaint schedule. It also noted Exs.P5 to P14 did not mention boundaries. It also referred to oral evidence of PW.1 wherein he stated Block-II Sy.no.9 was granted to his mother, he does not know to whom Block-I belongs to, that he does not know block number and survey number of lands of Shivananjappa, Ramaiah, Siddalaiah, Buddathimmaiah, Nanjamma and Siddagangamma. PW.1 also admitted about mentioning boundaries of defendants land in suit schedule. In view of alteration of Ex.P2 as well as admission about boundaries of suit schedule being that of defendants property, it answered issue regarding title of plaintiff in negative. Insofar as possession, it observed other exhibits were prepared in pursuance of Ex.P2 and in view of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 admission about erroneous boundaries, documentary evidence stood discharged. Based on above conclusions, it dismissed suit. 22. In appeal, first appellate Court notes boundaries of plaintiff’s property mentioned in Ex.P2 and observes tampering of survey numbers in Eastern and Western boundaries as well as block number. Thereafter, it refers to Ex.P3 and notes that Eastern boundary would be Sy.no.9 while Western boundary would be Block no.II and notes that same would not tally with suit property. It observes that PW.1 did not explain above discrepancies. On other hand, PW.1 gave totally different boundaries. And due to involvement in earlier litigation, it found deposition of PWs.2 and 3 to be biased and unreliable. It observes when dispute between parties was about boundaries, plaintiff failed to explain discrepancies, claim of defendants depended on adjudicated boundaries mentioned in O.S.no.135/1987 and O.S.no.8/1992. In light of same, it held plaintiff not entitled for presumption under Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Thereafter, it referred to Ex.D6 - sketch showing Block no.I being in possession of defendant no.1, bounded on East by Block no.IIB and on West - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 Block no.II which differed from suit property. On said observation, it concluded findings of trial Court about plaintiff failing to prove possession over suit property was fully justified and dismissed Appeal. 23. In view of above, though learned counsel for plaintiff would be justified in contending about maintainability of suit for bare injunction, even if plaintiff’s case is considered or examined de horse dispute about title, existence of serious dispute about identification of plaintiff’s property would appear justified. It is also seen, plaintiff’s claim over suit property rests substantially on grant sought to be established by producing Ex.P2, which is concurrently held to be tampered. As per ratio in Padmini Raghavan v. H.A. Sonnappa and Ors., reported in ILR 2014 Kar 233; Sheetawwa v. Hemareddi, reported in 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 623 and K.M. Basappa v. Patel Marule Gowda, reported in 1951 SCC OnLine Kar 13, no relief can be granted, where plaintiff relies on tampered documents. Though learned counsel for plaintiff contends other documents would be consistent both insofar as boundaries, measurement and survey numbers, as noted by both Courts deposition of plaintiff himself militates against his claim. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13551 RSA No. 624 of 2012 24. Moreover, both Courts have concurrently held, there are serious contradictions in boundary description of plaintiff’s property in Exhibits relied upon and plaint schedule. Under such circumstances, when PW.1 admits about mentioning boundaries of defendants land in suit schedule, and deposition of PWs.2 and 3 are held biased/unreliable due to earlier litigation, merely on basis of admission of defendants about grant of land to plaintiff, suit for permanent injunction, without establishing grant of suit property would appear untenable. In view of Ex.P2 being held unreliable due to tampering, finding of both Courts that plaintiff failed to establish title or possession over suit property, cannot be held to be contrary to law or unjustified. 25. No substantial questions of law including those proposed do not arise for consideration. Consequently, following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V. HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg/AV/GRD