- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22463 MSA No. 86 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.86 OF 2023 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N. RAMANUJAMMA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS. SRI. ADINARAYANA, PAPANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT NO.301, RICHMOND PALACE, 32, CONVENT ROAD, BENGALURU - 560025. 2. SMT. S. LAKSHMI KAMESWARI, W/O S. KRUPAKARA RAO, R/A NO.102, RANGANATHA RESIDENCY, SHYAMA NAGAR, TIKKAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520010. 3. SMT. P. SRIDEVI, W/O P. RAMAKRISHNA, R/AT FLAT NO.B-102, TRENDSET RHYTHM, WHITEFIELD, KONDAPURA HYDERABAD - 500 084. 4. SMT. ANURADHA, W/O K.S. SUNDAR, R/A D.NO.115, RD NO.5, PRASHANTH NAGAR, NARAYANAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560077. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22463 MSA No. 86 of 2023 5. SRI. N. YOGANAND, S/O SRI. ADINARAYANA, R/AT FLAT NO.504, SPENTA, HIRANANDANI ESTATE, PATILPADA, THANE - 400 607. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHADEV, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, R/AT MALLAKAKAN DODDI, TARALU PANCHAYATH, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (U) R/W SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1279/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH DISPOSAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22463 MSA No. 86 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is filed against the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the original sale deed is not placed before the Trial Court and the same was challenged before the First Appellate Court. Before the First Appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff filed the document along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC i.e., sale deed and the defendant/appellant herein also appeared and filed the written statement relying upon one more document of sale deed dated 13.06.2008. The said document was disputed by the appellant/plaintiff before the First Appellate Court stating that no such GPA was executed in favour of anyone and nor sold the suit schedule property and the sale deed produced by the respondent is fabricated. Having taken - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22463 MSA No. 86 of 2023 note of the said contention, the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.26 to 28 comes to the conclusion that there is a dispute with regard to the very document is concerned and the matter requires to be remanded and hence set aside the Trial Court’s order and remanded the matter to consider the same afresh by giving an opportunity to both the parties. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that when the plaintiff had already sold the property, the question of maintaining the suit for the relief of permanent injunction does not arise. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the document which was placed before the First Appellate Court. 5. Having considered the said submission and also on perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.27 taken - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22463 MSA No. 86 of 2023 note of the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff dated 04.04.2008 and the defendant/appellant herein relied upon the registered sale deed dated 13.06.2008 and the said document is executed by the GPA holder B.S.Nagaraja in favour of B.M.Jayapala and the same is disputed by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court. When such dispute is made in respect of the very sale deed, the matter has to be considered by the Trial Court with regard to the very execution of the document. If the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there was a sale deed through GPA holder executed by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for the relief of permanent injunction. If the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the very document is fabricated, as contended by the plaintiff and not proved the sale deed, which has been placed on record before the First Appellate Court by the appellant herein, the crux of the issue involved between the parties is with regard to the very execution of the subsequent sale deed and without recording the evidence by the Trial Court, the Trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22463 MSA No. 86 of 2023 cannot give any finding. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in remanding the matter in view of the dispute between the parties in respect of the alleged sale deed. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the appeal and the miscellaneous second appeal is devoid of merits. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44