- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.832 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O LATE SRI ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083. 2. SRI. MADESHA S/O SRI SEETHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083. 3. SRI MAHADEVA S/O LATE SRI SEETHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MADAPPA S/O LATE SRI ANNAYAPPA, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.M. VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25795/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 73RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, UNIT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023 passed by the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) (‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S. No.25795/2019, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of Site Nos.63 and 64, forming a part of Survey Nos.58 and 69 of Kowdenahalli, YerrayyanapalyA Dakhle, K.R. Puram Hobli, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 Bengaluru South Taluk (‘suit property’ for short) was decreed. 2. Plaint averments: i. Suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property. ii. Suit property was originally purchased by Annayappa (plaintiff’s father) on 24.11.1966. After the death of Annayappa, the plaintiff and his brother Gopalappa inherited the suit property. Gopalappa’s legal heirs executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 02.07.2019 in favour of the plaintiff. iii. The plaintiff claims exclusive ownership and possession, supported by Katha, tax receipts, encumbrance certificate and further states that a shed has been built on the sites. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 iv. The defendants, who are the cousins of the plaintiff, trespassed on 13.06.2019 to demolish the structure. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction. 3. Written statement averments: i. The defendants admit the title of Chinnappa under the sale deed dated 26.06.1965, however, dispute the plaintiff's claim of exclusive title and specifically assert that the sale deed dated 24.11.1966 was jointly in the name of Annayappa and Seethappa (defendant’s father). ii. That there was an oral partition and Annayappa retained Site No.63 (East) and Seethappa retained Site No.64 (West). Seethappa built a house in Site No.64 in 1976, got electricity connection in the year 1989, held katha and tax records. iii. After the death of Seethappa, partition suit was filed in O.S. No.16140/2006, which ended in compromise and Site No.64 was allotted to defendant No.1 (Radhamma). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 iv. The defendants claim that the plaintiff trespassed in their property in June 2019 leading to a police complaint. v. The claim of the plaintiff that he is in possession was denied. 4. The trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, was of the opinion that the sale deed dated 24.11.1966-Ex.P.1, defendant's father's name (Seethappa) appears only in hand written script on the typed written document and no thumb impression or signature of Seethappa in the Registrar's records. The Court holds doubt on the defendants’ claim of joint ownership. The trial Court observed that the tax receipts, katha, water bills only indicate tax liability and not lawful possession of the defendants. Further, held that the plaintiff showed the property in a dilapidated condition, uninhabitable. Defendants’ claim of residing there was rejected. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff's - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 possession was established and the defendants' claim of title / possession is unsubstantiated. By the judgment and decree, the suit was decreed and the defendants and anyone under them were permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over Site Nos.63 and 64. Aggrieved by which, the defendants have preferred the present regular first appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is legally unsustainable, as the suit for bare injunction itself was not maintainable once the very title was denied and clouded. When serious dispute in respect of ownership was raised, the plaintiff was bound to seek declaratory relief. A suit confined merely to injunction is not maintainable in law. It is further contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and has not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 established his exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that the name of Seethappa is found in the sale deed, though in the plaint such material fact is suppressed. In fact, the plaintiff himself deposed that there was an insertion of the name of Seethappa in the sale deed (Ex.P.1 produced by the plaintiff) and certified copy produced by defendant (Ex.D.1) are the same sale deed dated 24.11.1966, wherein the name of Seethappa is clearly reflected as a co-purchaser along with Annayappa. It is further contended that Ex.D.4 (Encumbrance Certificate) also shows both names, that is Annayappa and Seethappa, thereby negating the plea of exclusive ownership. Ex.P.9 series (Tax paid receipts) all stand on a single day i.e., 14.06.2019, just prior to the filing of the suit, which demonstrate that they were created only to set up a plea of possession. Ex.P.2-the alleged relinquishment deed by the heirs of Gopalappa in favour of the plaintiff is ineffective, since no exclusive right has ever vested in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 Annayappa, consequently, no better right could be conferred upon the plaintiff. Ex.P.8 (encumbrance certificate) cannot establish possession, mere entries do not prove actual possession. Further, it is submitted that Ex.P.3, relied upon by the plaintiff in fact relates to the site that is in possession of the defendants pursuant to oral partition, thereby corroborating the defence. It is also submitted that the plaintiff himself admitted that the suit property was the subject matter of an ex parte order of temporary injunction, which order was subsequently vacated on 27.07.2019, indicating that the Court was not satisfied about prima facie possession of the plaintiff even at the interlocutory stage. Accordingly, it is urged that the trial Court committed a grave error in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction despite the plaintiff having failed to establish either lawful exclusive possession or clear title. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff would seek to justify the judgment and decree of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 the Trial Court by placing strong reliance on Exs.P.1 to P.18. It is submitted that the plaintiff has conclusively established both lawful possession and unwarranted interference by the defendants, therefore entitling him to a decree of permanent injunction. It is specifically argued that Ex.P.1-the original sale deed dated 24.11.1966, clearly stands in the name of the plaintiff's father Annayappa. The mention of the name of Seethappa is only a subsequent handwritten insertion in the typed document. Importantly, the statutory record maintained in the office of the Sub-Registrar, namely the left thumb impression Registrar, shows the execution of the document only by Annayappa and not by Seethappa. The absence of any thumb impression or signature of Seethappa is fatal to the appellants’ claim of joint purchase. This according to the respondent establishes the defendants’ plea of joint possession and ownership is a mere afterthought and an interpolation without legal sanctity. Learned counsel further submits that Ex.P.3- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 Katha Extracts and Exs.P.9 and P.10 series-tax paid receipts show continuous payment of property taxes by the plaintiff and his predecessor. The same corroborates uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff. The contention of the appellants that these tax paid receipts were created on a single day is denied, as the entries in the municipal records and endorsements from BBMP corroborate the plaintiff's possession. Reliance is also placed on Ex.P.2- relinquishment deed dated 02.07.2018 executed by the legal heirs of Gopalappa, wherein they consciously gave up their rights in favour of the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, this registered document confers absolute rights on the plaintiff as he is a sole surviving heir of Annayappa. It is contended that Ex.P.5-certified copy of extract of thumb impression supports the plaintiff's case that original execution was in favour of Annayappa alone, along with Exs.P.6 and P.7, which depict the plaintiff's actual possession and the condition of structure on the suit property. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 rightly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, and rejected the defendants’ fabricated plea of oral partition and joint possession, and rightly decreed the suit for injunction. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: “i. Whether a bare suit for permanent injunction was maintainable, when the defendants had seriously disputed the title of the plaintiff and asserted joint ownership of the suit property? ii. Whether the finding of the trial Court was justified that the plaintiff has established exclusive possession over the suit properties on basis of Exs.P.1 to P.18 and whether the same warrants any interference by this Court?” Point No.i: 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly relied upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 Buchi Reddy1, (Anathula Sudhakar) to contend that when title is clouded, a plaintiff must seek declaratory relief. In this context, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the principle laid out in the said decision is that when the question of title is highly complex or doubtful, the proper remedy is a suit for declaration. However, the same judgment also clarifies that where the plaintiff is in lawful possession and the defendant is a mere trespasser or interloper, a suit for injunction is maintainable even if the defendant disputes title. 10. It is true that in cases of serious title dispute, an injunction simplicitor may not be maintainable and categorically held that if the defendants raise a bonafide dispute of title and the plaintiff's title itself is doubtful, the plaintiff cannot confine his action to injunction simplicitor. 11. In the present case, the plaintiff was fully aware that the sale deed dated 24.11.1966-Ex.P.1 equivalent to 1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 Ex.D.1, which carried the name of Seethappa along with Annayappa. The plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence that there was an insertion of Seethappa’s name. Further, Ex.D.4 records both names. Despite this knowledge, the plaintiff deliberately omitted to seek declaration of his exclusive title and choose to file a bare suit for injunction. The suit in the present form, in the absence of declaratory relief, was not maintainable. Accordingly, point No.i is answered. Point No.ii: 12. The trial Court's finding that the plaintiff was in possession is unsustainable for the following reason: i. The tax paid receipts-Ex.P.9 relied upon by the plaintiff were all obtained on a single day, i.e., 14.06.2019 just before filing of the suit. Such clustered payments cannot establish continuous possession. ii. Ex.P.2-the relinquishment deed executed by the heirs of Gopalappa would not create absolute ownership in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 favour of the plaintiff since Annayappa himself never had exclusive title, the co-purchaser rights of Seethappa continue to exist. iii. The plaintiff was in custody of the original sale deed Ex.P.1. Yet, he failed to disclose that Seethappa’s name appeared in the document. This amounts to suppression of vital fact. The plaintiff also secured an ex parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was later vacated on 27.08.2019, the Court found that the order was obtained by concealment of material documents. A party who approaches the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to equitable relief. The allegation that the defendants interfered on 13.06.2019 is unsupported by independent evidence. The plaintiff has failed to prove his exclusive possession over the property, which aspect is totally overlooked by the Trial Court, and accordingly, point No.ii framed for consideration is answered. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36906 RFA No. 832 of 2023 13. For the foregoing reason, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023 on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH- 74) in O.S. No.25795/2019, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction stands dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26