- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2015 (INJ) BETWEEN: MALLAMMA W/O LATE SANNA NANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, MEGALA KERI EXTENSION, CHANNARAYA PATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 006. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYAMMA W/O LATE C. LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, MEGALAKERI EXTENSION, CHANNARAYA PATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. 2. BHAGYAMMA W/O RAJEGOWDA, D/O LATE LAKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. ARJUNA S/O RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 4. BHAVANI D/O RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 5. HEMARAJU S/O LAKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 6. PANDU S/O LAKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 7. SUKANYA W/O SUNDRESHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESPONDENTS No. R1 TO R7, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MEGALAKERE EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. 8. RATHNAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O SOLLEPURA VILLAGE & POST, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 572 006. 9. RANGAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, MEGALKERI EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. N. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4, R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.08.2023 APPEAL AGAINST R5 AND R9 SHALL STANDS DISMISSED AND R3 ALSO DISMISSED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.229/2014 (OLD R.A.NO.9/2014) ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2013 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 PASSED IN O.S NO.348/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant No.1 under Section 100 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge an JMFC, Channarayapattana, in OS.No.348/2004 and the same was upheld by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.229/2014 (new) (Old R.A.No.9/2014) dated 23.01.2015, for having granted perpetual injunction as against the appellant as well as respondents. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and other respondents are served, unrepresented. 3. The appellant is the defendant No.1 and the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the defendant Nos.2(b) to (h) before the trial Court. The rank - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 of the parties is retained as before the trial court, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, one Nanjappa had four children namely 1) Sanna Nanjappa 2) Lingappa 3) Lakkappa 4) Rangappa. The suit schedule property measuring east to west 43 ft., north to south 14 ft., situated at Megalakeri layout, comes under Channarayapattana taluk, Hassan District, fallen to the share of Nanjappa. And after death of the Nanjappa, four children were divided the property into four pieces of sites measuring 10 3/4 feet X 14 feet each. The plaintiff husband Lingappa got first share which is on the corner side i.e., the south east site, the remaining children were got other three portions, the same measurement but the defendants were trying to interfere claiming the portion allotted to the plaintiff husband. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. 5. The defendant No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement and the defendant No.3 also filed written statement contending that the plaintiff claimed the 1st portion on the corner side, south east was fallen to share of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 husband of respondent No.1 -Sanna Nanjappa who is the elder son of Nanjappa, and the other portions given to other children of Nanjappa but the appellant by taking advantage of dismissal of the suit filed by the defendant No.3 -Rangappa and Mallamma in the year 1988, which was dismissed for non prosecution. Thereafter, plaintiff got mutated their name in the revenue records and they claimed right over the property. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The defendant No.3 also taken similar contention. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial court framed the following issues; 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the lawful owner in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property? 3) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that the plaintiff by colluding with the Municipal officials got changed the khatha of the suit schedule property into her - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 name and on that ground she has started to put up the construction in the suit schedule property? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit? 5) What order or decree? 7. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined one more witness as P.W.2 and got marked 18 documents as Ex.P.1 to 18. On behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendant no evidence was led. However, the defendant No.3 -Rangappa examined as DW.1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.D.1 to 10. After hearing the arguments the Trial Court answered the issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative. And finally granted perpetual injunction against the defendants. By challenging the same, the appellant herein alone filed the appeal and other two defendants not filed any appeal. And after hearing the arguments the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appellant is before this court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the property belongs one Nanjappa is not in dispute. Among the four children the husband of the appellant was the first son -Sanna Nanjappa. Third respondent was the fourth son -Rangappa, the other two children are Lingappa and Lakkappa. Though sites were divided into four parts, fallen first share to the appellant's husband who is the elder son, on the south eastern side. The remaining children are getting share by ascending order. But the Trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record, even without any production of the registered partition deed among them, decreed the suit which is not correct. It is also contended by the appellant counsel that the Trial Court passed the judgment only based upon a suit filed by the Rangappa -third defendant which was dismissed for non prosecution, based upon the judgment the plaintiff by taking the advantage got mutated their name in the revenue records and created the documents without appreciating evidence and without appointing Commissioner, the Trial Court come to the conclusion by granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff, which is not correct and therefore prayed for setting aside both the judgments. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.1 who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court has supported the judgments of both the courts. 10. Based upon the pleadings and on perusal of the records which reveals though the appellant herein taken the various contention, the first portion i.e., south eastern side was fallen to the share of her husband Sanna Nanjappa, except filing the written statement she was not entered into the witness box, led any evidence or oral or any documentary evidence. Whereas the defendant No.3-Rangappa who was filed affidavit, led evidence before the Trial Court contending that he has already filed a suit before the trial court in OS.No.492/88, which was dismissed about 10 years back for non prosecution and thereafter the plaintiff was created the documents by taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit for non prosecution but in the cross examination he has admitted that all the portions were equally divided into four portions and the defendant No.3 who was examined as DW.1 not disputed he has filed one more suit as per Ex.P.16 in OS.No.327/2004 which was dismissed by the Trial Court on merits, where the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 Rangappa and Mallamma are the plaintiffs and Jayamma was the defendant No.1, the Lakkappa was the second defendant. The suit was filed by both the defendant No.1 as well as 3rd defendant, which was dismissed on merits by the court. 11. Considering the same the Trial Court based upon the evidence on record especially the revenue records, tax assessment register extract, tax paid receipt, license obtained by the plaintiff for construction of the shops and especially Ex.P.16 and 17 the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Channarayapattana in OS.No.327/2004 dated 20.11.2004, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in OS.No.348/2004. On perusal of the judgment the very first defendant i.e., appellant herein and defendant No.3 were jointly filed a suit against the plaintiff -Jayamma and Lakkappa -the second defendant, contest the matter and suit was dismissed. The Ex.P.16 and 17 i.e., the judgment and decree suffered by the appellant and respondent No.3 herein in respect of same schedule property by suppressing the same the respondent /defendant contested the matter and even filed appeal before the first appellate court. Where the first appellate - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 court dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel contended that there is no document especially the partition deed produced by them. There is no registered partition. Of course there is no dispute in respect of sharing the property into four portions by the children of Nanjappa. The Rangappa has filed the suit and suffered the decree and it was dismissed for non prosecution and thereafter along with the appellant he has filed one more suit as per Ex.P.16 and suffered the decree. And there is no appeal to attain the finality. Such being the case, based upon the suit for injunction the plaintiff required to show lawful possession regarding allotment of share is not in dispute. Husband of the plaintiff is the son of the Nanjappa is not in dispute. The appellant and defendant No.3 already filed suit and suffered decree. Such being the case suit for injunction, the plaintiff required to show only lawful possession which is already shown by the plaintiff in the Trial Court. It is not suit for declaration or dispute in the title in order to file title deed in the suit for injunction, such being the case I am of the view there is no substantial questions of law involved in this appeal. The appellant and defendant No.3 already suffered decree by the Trial Court which is attained finality. Such being the case - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4831 RSA No. 844 of 2015 once again it cannot claim the same property in suit filed by the plaintiff for bare injunction. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:SK