- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.985 OF 2024 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2024 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2024 (INJ) IN RSA NO.985/2024: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.M. CHANDRAIAH S/O MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 8TH MAIN ROAD PRAKASHNAGAR BENGALURU-560 021. 2. SRI. B.N. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O M. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.846 6TH MAIN ROAD WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 086. 3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEGGANAHALLI VISHVANEEDAM POST OM SHANTHI TEMPLE ROAD Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 SANJEVENI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 091. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMESH KUMAR PATTAR S/O BABURAO PATTAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 223 6TH CROSS, NANDINI LAYOUT SARASWATHIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 096. 2. SRI. RAMESHMULLYA S/O GURUVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT HAVANURU LAYOUT HESARUGHATTA MAIN ROAD NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.61/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2020 PASSED IN O.S.No.514/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 IN RSA NO.991/2024: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.M. CHANDRAIAH S/O MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 8TH MAIN ROAD PRAKASHNAGAR BENGALURU-560 021. 2. SRI. B.N. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O M. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.846 6TH MAIN ROAD WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 086. 3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT HEGGANAHALLI VISHVANEEDAM POST OM SHANTHI TEMPLE ROAD SANJEVENI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 091. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SRIVANI CHANDRASHEKAR W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.297 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 12TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE WEST OF CHORD ROAD BENGALURU-560 010. 2. SRI. RAMESHMULLYA S/O GURUVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT HAVANURU LAYOUT HESARUGHATTA MAIN ROAD NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 079. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.60/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.516/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. IN RSA NO. 992/2024: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.M. CHANDRAIAH S/O MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 8TH MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHNAGAR BENGALURU-560 021. 2. SRI. B.N. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O M. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.846 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 6TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 086. 3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT HEGGANAHALLI VISHVANEEDAM POST OM SHANTHI TEMPLE ROAD SANJEVENI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 091. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B.Y. MANJAPPA S/O BASAPPA YELLER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.243/1 NEAR K.G.KALYANA MANTAPA JALAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU-560 013. 2. SRI. RAMESHMULLYA S/O GURUVAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT HAVANURU LAYOUT HESARUGHATTA MAIN ROAD NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 079. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V.AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.59/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.518/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are heard earlier when the matters are posted for admission. The learned counsel for the appellant today also made the submission before the Court that except producing the sale deed, they have not produced any proof of document for layout plan and approved plan except the khata certificate, encumbrance certificate and also the tax paid receipt and not established the identity of the property. Hence, the Trial Court committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction and unless property is identified even assuming that defendants have not contested the matter and even in the ex-parte also, plaintiff has to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 identify the property since in the schedule mentioned as Sy.No.109 and respective site numbers in the said sale deeds and hence both the Trial court as well as First Appellate Court committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction and confirming the same and hence this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantive question of law. 2. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court that the defendants though filed the written statement, not adduced any evidence and also earlier adduced evidence, but filed a memo to discard the evidence of D.W.1 and the same is found in the order of the Trial Court in paragraph No.12 and also not lead any evidence and hence taken evidence of defendant as no evidence. 3. The counsel would vehemently contend that that in order to prove the identity of the property, not only produced the sale deed, even in respect of the description of the property which is described in the schedule, other - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 relevant documents are produced that is encumbrance certificate, B-property register extract as well as Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.11 tax paid receipts and challan. The counsel would vehemently contend that katha is a B-katha in respect of the schedule properties are concerned and the same is identified and particularly to the properties only, the B-katha is issued and now the appellants cannot dispute the identity of the property and even after discarding the evidence, cannot disprove the identity of the property. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents, particularly the Trial Court taken note of sale deed Ex.P.1 and other documents of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.11. No doubt as contended by the appellants’ counsel that layout plan is not placed before the Court. But, the fact is that having purchased the property by the plaintiff, got it the revenue records in respect of the property which is morefully described in the schedule and B-Katha extract is also placed before the Court and also paid the tax. In a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 suit for injunction, Court has to take note of as on the date of filing of the suit whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property, law is also settled. In order to substantiate that plaintiff is in possession, not only produced the sale deed as well as encumbrance certificate and B-katha extract as well as tax paid receipts are also produced before the Court and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.17 even relying upon the judgment in ILR 2006 KAR 1047 SC in case of Ramegowda V/s M.Varadappa Naidu wherein an observation is also made that there is law presumes that possession to go with the title unless the same is rebutted, but in the case on hand also though defence is taken by the defendant that identity of the property is not proved, but not lead any evidence, only written statement remains. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited with regard to the possession is concerned. When such being the case, the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 in detail taken note of the possession was established by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 plaintiff and even taken note of though defendants adduced the evidence and got discarded the evidence. 5. The counsel appearing for the respondents also brought to the notice of this Court that some of the documents which have been placed before the Trial Court and the same were not marked and if the documents are marked on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiffs ought to have taken the certified copies and none of the documents are got marked on behalf of the defendants with regard to the disputing the identity of the property and taken back the same. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and also while considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the points whether the Court below has committed an error in holding that plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit while answering the same and also the point No.2 whether it requires interference by the Appellate Court and taken note of the material available - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 on record particularly the plaintiff’s evidence as well as in paragraph No.14 made an observation that defendants have filed memo stating that no evidence of the defendants and even during the course of the cross- examination, defendants have admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion. When the judgment of Apex Court i.e., Anantula Sudhakar was also pressed into the service and the same was also extracted by the Appellate Court in paragraph No.15 particularly extracting the paragraph Nos.15 and 16. 6. It is not the dispute of the defendants that there was no any sale deed. Only dispute is with regard to the identity of the property is concerned. When the documents of exhibit P-series Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 are produced before the Court with regard to establishing the possession of the plaintiff. Apart from that oral and documentary evidence are also taken note of by the Trial Court and Appellate Court while re-appreciating the same. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45257 RSA No. 985 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 991 of 2024 RSA No. 992 of 2024 Hence, I do not find any ground to accept the contention of the appellants’ counsel that property is not identified and even in the absence of any approved plan, when the documents are stands in the name of the plaintiff and concerned revenue authorities changed the katha and with regard to the identification of the property is concerned, they have issued the katha as well as collected the tax paid receipt and this document establishes the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, no ground is made out to admit and frame substantive question of law. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER Second Appeals are dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25