- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2007 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI LAKSHMANA S/O. NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT BEEDIKERE VILLAGE TUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TQ BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (SINCE DEAD BY LR'S AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.03.2025) 1(a) B.L. EREGOWDA S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK BEEDIKERE, BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205. 1(b) B.L. HANUMANTHAGOWDA S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK BEEDIKERE BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205. 1(c) ANANDA S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 R/AT BEEDIKERE, GANTIGANAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALLUK BEEDIKERE BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205. 1(d) MANJUNATHA B.L., S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK BEEDIKERE BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205. 1(e) RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT BEEDIKERE GANTIGANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205. 1(f) ARAVINDA C. GOWDA S/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK BEEDIKERE, GANTIGANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL - 561205. 1(g) NARENDRA C. GOWDA S/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT DODABALLAPURA TALLUK BEEDIKERE, GANTIGANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL - 561 205. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANIKETH A.V., ADVOCAE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.1 (A To G) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 AND: 1. SRI A. RAMAIAH S/O. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YRS R/AT BEEDIKERE VILLAGE TUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (SINCE DEAD BY LR'S AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.03.2025) 1(a) B.R. RAMANJANAIA S/O. LATE A. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. DIBBUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. 1(b) SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. DIBBUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. 1(c) SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SHAMPANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 1(d) SRI. JAGADISH S/O. LATE A. RAMAIAH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. 1(e) SRI. LOKESH S/O. LATE A. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT- 562 101. 1(f) SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJA R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (B TO F) IS ABSENT R1(A) IS SERVED. VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2017, NOTICE TO R1 (D-F) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.4.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.36/2002 (OLD NO. 222/1998) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), DODDABALLPUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.1998 PASSED IN O.S.NO.78/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This Second Appeal against a divergent finding is filed by the defendant. Suit for injunction filed by the respondent is dismissed. The plaintiff filed first appeal and the said first appeal is allowed and consequently, the suit is decreed. Aggrieved by the decree for injunction, the defendant is before this Court and the Second Appeal is admitted vide order dated 02.09.2009 to answer the following substantial question of law, "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.78/1993 is perverse and contrary to the evidence and pleading on record when suit for specific performance in respect of subject property is pending in appeal between the parties?" 2. The brief facts are noticed as under, The suit property is 2 Acres 25 Guntas of land in survey No.71/2 in Beedikere Village, Tubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. There is no dispute that the plaintiff owns this property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 The suit is filed on 08.03.1993 on the premise that the defendant is interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant contested the suit and took a stand that the plaintiff and his son agreed to sell the suit property along with three other properties. The defendant has taken a contention that on 20.05.1986, the plaintiff has agreed to sell the suit property and the defendant is in possession of the same. The defendant has also taken the contention that he has purchased the property for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- and he is the absolute owner. 4. The Trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff is not in possession and has also held that the agreement of sale dated 20.05.1986 is duly established. 5. It is also relevant to note that the defendant has filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.455/1995 in respect of the suit property and other three properties covered under the agreement dated 20.05.1986. The said suit is filed against the present plaintiff as well as his son. The said suit is decreed and decree for specific performance is granted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 6. The first appeal filed by the defendant in the said suit for specific performance is dismissed on the ground of delay. Then, a second appeal is filed in RSA No.1916/2018 and the said appeal is dismissed again on the ground of delay. It is submitted that Special Leave Petition against the said decrees is pending consideration before the Apex Court in SLP No.19791/2019. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the decree for specific performance is granted and the Court has recorded the finding in the said suit in O.S.No.455/1995 that the present defendant(who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.455/1995) is in possession of the property pursuant to agreement of sale. Thus, the First Appellate Court could not have allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for injunction in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.78/1993 who has suffered a decree for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.455/1995 where there is a finding that the plaintiff in O.S.No.78/1993 is not in possession of the property. The finding of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff is in possession based on the record of rights is totally erroneous; and the First Appellate Court could not have ignored the decree - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 for specific performance where there is a finding that the present appellant is in possession of the suit property. 8. This Court has perused the records. 9. The following dates are relevant. The suit for injunction in O.S.No.78/1993 is filed on 08.03.1993. The suit for specific performance in O.S.No.455/1995 is filed in the year 1995. O.S.No.455/1995 was decreed on 30.03.2002. The suit for injunction in O.S.No.78 of 1993 was dismissed on 22.09.1998. The first appeal is filed against the said judgment in O.S.No.78/1993 in R.A.No.222/1998 and same is renumbered as R.A.No.36 of 2002 on transfer. R.A.No.36/2002 was dismissed on 22.04.2006. The defendants in O.S.No.455/1995 had filed an appeal against the decree for specific performance in RA No.10136/2016. The respondent in the said appeal had produced the judgment in O.S.No.455/1995 before the First Appellate Court. However, the First Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is in possession of the property despite the finding in a decree in O.S.No.455/1995 in which the agreement for sale is upheld and the agreement holder is said to be in possession of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 properties covered under the agreement. It is also noticed that RSA No.1916/2018 is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.455/1995 and R.A.No.10136/2016. 10. Though the Special Leave Petition is pending before the Apex court, in which the decree for specific performance is challenged, there is no stay of the finding relating to the possession of the present appellant pursuant to agreement for sale dated 20.05.1986. What is stayed is the execution of the decree in O.S.No.455/1995. 11. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the First Appellate Court could not have granted a decree for injunction holding that the plaintiff in O.S.No.78/1993 who is the respondent in this case is in possession of the suit schedule property. The finding of the First Appellate Court runs contrary to the finding relating to possession of the suit property in O.S.No.455/1995. 12. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative. However, it is made clear that the finding on possession recorded in this case is subject to finding - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19335 RSA No. 959 of 2007 of the Apex Court in pending SLP No.19791/2019. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgement and decree dated 22.04.2006 in R.A.No.36 of 2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Doddaballapura are set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 22.09.1998 in O.S.No.78 of 1993 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Doddaballapur are set aside and the suit is dismissed, subject to the result in Special Leave Petition No.19791/2019. (iii) No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67