- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1693 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI CHANRASHEKHAR B AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE K BASAVAIAH RESIDING AT NO.4098/1 NEW NO.L-29 SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD GANDHINAGAR MYSURU-570007 …APPELLANT (BY SRI Y K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SOWBHAGYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O SRI ESHWARA 2. SRI SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SRI ESHWARA BOTH NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4098/2 NEW NO. L-9/2A SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD GANDHINAGAR MYSURU-570 007 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAVEEN KUMAR FOR SRI A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.40/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2019 PASSED IN O.S No.1371/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Naveen Kumar for Sri A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is appellant in this Second Appeal. 3. Facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under. A suit for bare injunction came to be filed, contending that plaintiff is the owner in possession in respect of property bearing Door No.4098/1 New No. L-29 Siddhapaji Temple road, Gandhi Nagar Mysuru, measuring East to West 18 feet, North to South 30 feet, having purchased the same on 04.09.2015 from Smt.Tholasamma, Sri Srinivas and others through registered sale deed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 4. Plaintiff after purchase of the property applied for change of revenue entries and after the transfer of revenue entries in the name of the plaintiff, he is paying taxes in respect of the suit property. 5. Mysuru City Corporation having objected the change of Katha in the name of the plaintiff, had to ultimately transfer the revenue entries pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P No. 50102/2015. 6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendants are politically influenced people and they have influenced the officials of Mysore City Corporation and defendants are spreading false news that they are going to construct a structure in the suit property. 7. Therefore, plaintiff had to file the suit seeking an order of permanent injunction against the defendants and their followers from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed common written statement denying the plaint averments specifically. 9. Defendants contended that there is no cause of action to file the suit. Defendants further explained their stand in paragraphs 14 to 16, which is culled out hereunder for ready reference. “The defendants submit that the first defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the house property bearing No. 4098/2A New No. L9, (original No. 4098/1, New No. L-29) situated at 12th Cross, St Mary's Road, Siddapaji Temple Road, Gandhinagara, Mysuru, measuring East to West 30 Ft and North to South 30Ft. Originally the property bearing No. 4098/1 New No. L- 29 total extent of East to West 50 Ft and North to South 30 Ft, belongs to one Kariya and Smt. Lakshmamma who are the parents of Late Chaluvaiah. The vendors of the plaintiff are the children of late Cheluvaiah. During the life time of said Kariya and Smt. Lakshmamma have sold a portion of the property measuring East to West 30 Ft and North to South 30 Ft out of total extent of East to West 50 Ft and North to South 30 Ft, in favour of one Smt.Seeramma, who is the mother-in-law of the 1st defendant, through a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1951. The katha of the said property has been transferred in the name of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 said Seeramma. After the death of said Seeramma her children viz. S.Krishnappa, S.Dasappa and S.Easwara who is the husband of the 1st defendant and father of the 2nd defendant are entered into a registered partition deed dated 17.3.2010 dividing the entire property i.e. total extent of 30x30 among themselves. The 1st defendant herein is the wife of the 3rd son Sri Easwara. The khata of their respective properties had been registered before the Mysore City Corporation and they have remitted the taxes to the concerned department. The husband of the 1st defendant also passed away. Thereafter the 1st defendant applied for transfer of khata to her name and the Mysore city corporation transferred the khata into her name. Thereafter the 1st defendant obtained the plan from the Mysore City Corporation and constructed the residential house and residing in the said house which is located eastern side of the plaint schedule property. 15. The defendant submit that, thereby the said Kariya and his wife Smt. Lakshmamma remain an extent of 20 X 30 Ft. in their name. After demise of the said Kariya and Smt. Lakshmamma and also their son K. Chaluvaiah, the legal heirs of the late Cheluvviah viz. Thulasamma, Srinivasa, Prakasha and Padma @ Padmavathi and wife of Late Chaluvaiah namely Devamma (alleged vendors of the plaintiff) have jointly executed a Registered sale deed with respect house property bearing No. 4098/1 New No.L29, situated at 12th Cross, St Mary's Road, Siddapaji Temple Road, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 Gandhinagara, Mysuru, measuring East to West 13 Ft and North to South 30 ft out of total extent of East west 20 ft North South 30 ft. in favour of Sri. D. Rangaswamy and Smt. D. Radha through registered sale deed dated 25.07.1992 the said sale deed registered before the office of the sub registrar, Mysuru South, in Book No. 1, volume 4244, Pages 194-197, Document No. 2083, on 25.07.1992. The katha of the suit schedule property was also transferred in the name of D. Ranghaswamy and D. Radha, by giving sub number 4098/6A New No.L29/A and they are become absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the same. 16. The defendants submit that, there after on 16.01.1995 the said D. Rangaswamy and D. Radha have sold the said property in favour of one Sri. T. Siddaraju through a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1995 registered before the office of the sub registrar, Mysuru South, Mysuru in book No. 1, Volume 4484, Pages 182-184, document No. 4234. The katha of the said property has been transferred into the name of T. Siddaraju and he became absolute owner and in possession of the said property. Thereafter, the said T. Siddaraju also sold the said property in favour of Sri. Narayana through a registered sale deed dated 28.03.2000, the same has been registered before the Sub registrar, Mysore South, Mysore in book No. 1 Volume No. 5115, Pages 96-98 document No. 9706 dated 30.03.2000. After purchase of the said property - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 the said Narayana got transferred the katha and paid upto date taxes to the Mysuru City Corporation and he was in possession of the said property till his death. The said Narayana passed away on 14.01.2009 leaving behind, as his legal heirs, his wife Smt. Thulasi and two children namely Naveen H.N.. Vithisha H.N..” 10. In other words, there was a dispute as to the property purchased by the plaintiff and suit property. 11. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after due contest and after verifying the material documents placed by either side, by the judgment dated 02.08.2019 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 12. While so dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in paragraph No.15 of the impugned Judgment, learned Trial Judge has specifically stated that the property purchased by the plaintiff is different from the suit property. 13. Paragraph No.15 is culled out hereunder for ready reference. “15. ಇದಲ ೕ ಳಸಮ ಎಂವವ ಈ ಯ ಜ ದ .1 ಪ ! " ಅಸ$ % ನಂ.176/2016 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 ಸ "'( ) ಎಂ* ಪ +%, ಪರ ವ.ೕಲ %ದ ಮಂ"*/ ಅದ 0ೕ1ಸ$ 23 .33 ಜಪ"'( ). ಸದ1 ಆ ಯ ಈ ಯ %, 11 3ೕ ಪ +%, ಆ5'( ). ಆ ಬ78 %,/.ಡ; < 1 ರವರ ,=ಂಕ 29.11.018 ರ ?@ೕ ಸ%ನ 4 3ೕ Bಟದ D3ಯ ಖಂFಯ ಅವ = ಮ( G$ವಯ< ರವರ %ರHರ Iೕ1 ಈ ಯ ಸ "ವ ಕ ಯಪತ ವ KLM Dಂ/ ೕ ಅದ ರ*/ ಪಸNೕFಂ* Dೕ1 ಳ"ಯವ ನನ OೕP ಸ "'( ) ಎಂದ) ಸ1 ಎಂ* ಒR Dಂ'( ). . 33 ಮ( %,ಯ ಈ TೕUFಯ %, ಮ( ಪ +%,ಗW ಜಪ"ದ XYಕ ಮ( ಖZ+ [\< ಗಳ ]ಲಂ]ಶ%5 ಪ1!ೕ" _ೕಗ % ಸಂಬಂದಪಟM ಂ` %,ಯ [a ಮ< ದ ಬ78 ಅಸR ಷM ` ಕಂc ಬತ( . %,ಯ [a ಮ< ದ ಬ78 ತಕd ಇ/ ಗ Fೕವಲ 2ಶa ತ ಬeಂಧghi ಊkeತವಲ , ಇ* meತ =< ಯ%5ತ( . ಈ nಷಯವ ಸಮoeಸ$ ಪ +%, ಪರ ವ.ೕಲ ನ< ಸpೕeಚr =< sಲಯ ವರ, ವ AIR 2008 SC 2033 Ananthulu Sudhakar V/S Buchi Reddy By LRs and others ಈ ಪ ಕರಣವ ಆ•1"*/ , ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದ 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 defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of 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.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 14. Being aggrieved by the same, unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal in R.A No.40/2020 on the file of the VII Addl. District Judge, Mysuru. 15. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and taken into consideration the probative value of Ex.P.1-sale deed and discussed the same in paragraphs 28 to 30 and by the judgment dated 30.11.2020 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the learned Trial Judge. 16. For the sake of convenience and clarity, paragraph Nos. 28 to 30 is called out hereunder. “28. In this case, on perusal of pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff, it is seen that as per Ex.P1 the plaintiff has purchased the property measuring 18x30 feet bearing No.4098/1 situated at Siddappaji Temple Road, Lashkar Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Mysuru city. The plaintiff has also produced two tax paid receipts and one S.R.S submitted by him to the MCC which shows that he has paid tax pertaining to above said property in the year 2015/16. The other documents produced by the plaintiff shows the name of one Cheluvaiah and Siddaraju for the property bearing No.4098/6 and 4098/6A. The title deed produced at Ex.P6 shows that property bearing Site No.198/A - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 measuring 166 2/3 square yards was granted in favour of one Kariya. Whereas the encumbrance certificate produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P7 shows the name of K.Cheluvaiah as the grantee of said property. The other documents produced by the plaintiff shows the name of his vendors in respect of suit property. At the outset it is necessary to note that, since the plaintiff is claiming the relief of permanent injunction, he has to first establish his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of suit. Mere production of sale deed and the tax paid receipts are not sufficient to say that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of the suit. 29. In this case, it is the specific defence of the defendants that suit property as described by the plaintiff is not in existence and one Smt.Tulasi is owner in possession of the remaining property bearing No.4098/1 belonging to original grantee. In support of it, defendant No.1 has also placed several documents, which shows that the property bearing No.4098/1 is being transferred in the hands of several purchasers. The plaintiff is also one of the purchasers of said property for the land measuring 18x30 feet under a registered sale deed. But looking to the facts and circumstances and the documents placed by both sides and since the right of the plaintiff’s vendor is disputed and identification of suit property itself is disputed, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that he is in possession of suit property as described in the schedule. Though the plaintiff claims to be in possession - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 of property measuring 18x30 feet with specific boundaries, the documents placed by the defendant No.1 shows that no such property was available at the hands of vendors of the plaintiff. Moreover plaintiff admits that one Smt.Thulasi has filed the suit against him and his vendors, seeking the relief of cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff marked at Ex.P-1 in this case and also for permanent injunction. The documents placed by the defendant No.1 also shows that in the suit filed by Smt.Tulasi against the plaintiff and his vendors, the Court has passed the interim order restraining this plaintiff and his vendors from interfering with possession and enjoyment of suit property in favour of said Tulasi. Under these circumstances, it is clear that plaintiff has failed to establish his possession as claimed in this suit. Unless plaintiff establishes possession over the suit property, he is not entitled for relief of permanent injunction even though the defendants admit interference by claiming to be in possession of the part of suit property. 30. Further the plaintiff himself has averred that the revenue authorities have refused to mutate his name in revenue records and the details have not been produced before the court. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar V. P Buchy that As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer of injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where dejure possession has to be established on - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. Further in a decision reported in ILR 2005 KAR 884 between T.N.Nagendra Babu Vs. Manohar Rao Pawar it is held that unless the court is satisfied with regard to material details in the light of the material evidence with regard to the identification of the property, no declaration and injunction can be granted. In this case though the plaintiff’s title and that of his vendor as well as the identity of the property having been disputed by the defendant, the plaintiff did not produce any document to prove that he is in possession of the suit property as described in the plaint and he admits that a earlier suit filed by one Smt.Tulasi for declaration and injunction challenging the plaintiff’s sale deed is pending and a interim order is passed against him in the said suit. Under all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court was right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The appellant has failed to prove that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is against to the law and the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the said judgment. In the result I answer point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.” 17. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021  The courts below failed to note that the identity of the property claimed by the appellant and the respondents are different and the measurements of the properties claimed are also different.  The courts below failed to consider and decide the identity of the property claimed by the appellant and the property claimed by the respondents.  There is no bonafide denial of the title of the appellant by the respondents and the respondents are claiming different property with different number and as such there is no denial of the title of the appellant and the denial is only regarding the lawful possession of the appellant. Hence the courts below misdirected by themselves in holding that the suit is not maintainable.  The respondents have not given the source of title or the particulars of the title in respect of the property claimed by them. The courts below failed to note that reference to the partition deed by the respondents cannot be source of title as the title of the parties before the partition has to be pleaded and proved by relying upon the alleged partition deed the title of the respondents cannot be traced and their claim cannot be accepted. The Courts below have failed to consider these facts and circumstances.  The courts below failed to note that the suit schedule property has been purchased by the appellant under registered sale deed dated 04-09-2015 and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence primafacie, the title of the appellant is established under registered - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 sale deed and is no issue regarding the title of the appellant in the suit as being one for injunction  The courts below failed to note that the site was allotted by the CITB, Mysuru to one Sri K.Cheluvaiah S/o Sri Karia alias Ravi Thimma/Ravi Kumar and the sale deed dated 25- 02-1975 registered as document No.4060/1974-75 has been executed by CITB in favour of Sri K.Cheluvaiah and he was put in possession of the same. The said property of K Cheluvaiah measures East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet. After the death of K. Cheluvaiah, the western end portion measuring East to West 18 feet and North to South 30 feet has been sold by Smt. Thulasamma daughter of late K Cheluvaiah and their children in favour of Sri Chandrashekhar B, the appellant herein under registered sale deed dated 04-09-2015 registered as document No.5164/2015- 16. There is remaining portion of property on the Eastern side measuring East to West 32 feet and North to South 30 feet which as with the legal heirs of late K.Cheluvaiah. It is also on record that the Eastern portion is occupied by the respondents and they are close relatives of Smt.Thulasamma W/o late Narayana, Sri Narayana being the brother of Smt. Sowbhagya. The courts below failed to consider these relevant and material facts while deciding the dispute  The courts below failed to note that the respondents who are the relatives of Smt.'Tholasamma are entitled only to the Eastern portion of the property and the Western portion belongs to the appellant. These aspects of the matter has not been properly appreciated and considered by the courts below - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021  The courts below have committed error of law in misinterpreting the documents on record and also misinterpreting the evidence on record  The courts below failed to consider the relevant evidence on record while deciding the disputes and thereby committed error of law.”  The courts below failed to note that there is collusion between the respondents and Smt. Thulasamma wife of late Narayana in putting forward false claim against the appellant.” 18. In the appeal, following substantial questions of law are also raised. a) “Whether the courts below committed error of law in not considering the real dispute between the parties and regarding the identity of the property? b) Whether the courts below committed error of law in holding that the suit for injunction is not maintainable? c) Whether the courts below committed error of law in misinterpreting the documents and evidence on record? d) Whether the courts below committed error of law in not noticing that the property claimed by the plaintiff is different from the property claimed by respondents, both in respect of the measurements and the boundaries of the properties ? - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 e) Whether the courts below committed error of law in not considering the facts that the respondents and Smt.Thulasamma are in possession and enjoyment of the Eastern portion of the property left behind by late K.Cheluvaiah i.e., the portion to the East of the appellant's Property.” 19. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has filed an application with additional documents, which according to him was supposed to be produced by the defendant to substantiate the defence and having failed to do so, to facilitate the Court to understand the case of the parties in its proper perspective, additional documents are necessary. 20. He further contended that in very rare circumstances, even in the Second Appeal, the additional documents can be looked into by the Court, de hors the requirement under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for taking the additional documents on record and to admit the appeal for further consideration on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 21. Per contra, Sri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments. 22. He would further emphasize that the plaintiff having failed to prove the lawful possession over the suit property. Further plaintiff being a party in the comprehensive suit in O.S No.176/ 2016 has to establish his title in respect of the suit property wherein Thulsi, W/o Narayana is plaintiff and vendor of the plaintiff in this appeal is also a party defendant. 23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, when there is a clear finding recorded by the Trial Court that there is discrepancy with regard to the sale deed contents and the actual possession that has been claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. 24. Having recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, dismissal of the suit for bare injunction by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court, needs no interference in the Second Appeal by admitting the Appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32218 RSA No. 1693 of 2021 25. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, reserving the right of the present appellant to canvass all his contentions in the pending suit in O.S No.176/2016, present appeal needs to be dismissed. 26. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. (ii) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, are consigned to record. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36