- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1297 OF 2009 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. H.V. SHIVANANDAPPA, S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA CITY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.T. THIPPESWAMY, S/O MADIVALARA THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT. SUNAGAR BEEDI, NEAR KARUVINAKATTE CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA 2. SMT. SARVAMANGALA, W/O H.V. NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.334, 2ND CROSS, SANGAMA, 2ND BLOCK, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560094 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND PRESIDENT, IUDP LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA CITY 4. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY CHITRADURGA 5. THE COMMISSIONER URBAN DEVELOPMENT Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 AUTHORITY, CHITRADURGA 6. SRI. P.G. LOKESH S/O P.V. GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT RAMAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE, CHALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 6 SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R3 SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (VC) SRI. AKRAM UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R2 - SD) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 28.5.2009 PASSED IN R.A.102/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.4.2006 PASSED IN O.S.109/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) CHITRADURGA. THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Defendant No.2 in OS.No.109/2005 on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.), Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) is impugning the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and also restraining defendant Nos.3 to 5 by giving assistance to defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, which was confirmed in RA No.102/2006 on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.), Chitradurga vide judgment dated 28.05.2009, by dismissing the appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff has filed the suit OS.No.109/2005 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 5 contending that defendant No.3 – the Deputy Commissioner and president of I.U.D.P. layout, Chitradurga formed layout in Sy.No.133/01 situated in Chitradurga District now within Chitradurga City Municipality. One G.Obaiah has sought for grant of a site in the layout and the sale certificate was issued in his favour in respect of the site No.531 on 15.09.1997. The schedule appended to the plaint describes the site bearing No.531 measuring East – West - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 : 18 feet and North – South : 40 Feet situated in 5th block in NH4 road right side Bengaluru – Dharwad road with boundary mentioned therein. The said G.Obaiah sold the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 04.02.2004 and thus, it is contended by the plaintiff that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since the date of purchase. 4. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are not having any right over the schedule property, were trying to trespass over the same and therefore, sought for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Such permanent injunction is also sought against defendant Nos.3 to 5 to restrain them from assisting defendant Nos.1 and 2 in illegally trespassing over the property. 5. Defendant No.2 has filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have jointly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.133/1 measuring 4 acres 37 guntas from its earlier owners - Parameshwarappa and Puttamma, under the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 registered sale deed dated 09.01.1981. The khata was transferred in their names and mutation was effected. The Government acquired 4 acres 4 guntas of land out of the 4 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.133/1 for the purpose of forming the layout under I.U.D.P Scheme and issued Gazzete Notification dated 13.01.1984. After acquisition of the property by the Government, the remaining 33 guntas of the land was being enjoyed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. 6. It is contended that defendant No.2 had applied for No Objection Certificate (NOC) from National Highway Authority India, seeking permission for alienating the land measuring 33 guntas in Sy.No.133/1. The plaintiff has no right what so ever over the said land. But he has approached this Court by suppressing the material facts and got temporary injunction to knock off the property belonging to the defendants. The suit is false, frivolous and vexatious. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the 3rd defendant formed the schedule site in Sy.No.133/1 and the same was granted to one G.Obaia through valid sale certificate dated 08.09.1997 and from the said G.Obaiah, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule site? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit? (v) What order or Decree? 8. Plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 3 in support of his contention. Defendant No.2 is examined as DW1 and he got marked Exs.D1 to 16 in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered Issue Nos.1 to 4 in the Affirmative and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 has preferred RA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 No.102/2006. The First Appellant Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record found that the Trial Court was right in decreeing the suit and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, defendant No.2 is before this Court. 9. As per the order dated 24.02.2010, following substantial question of law was framed for consideration. (i) In the light of independent documents having been produced by the appellant to establish that the property, in the possession of the appellant was apart from the property, which was said to have been acquired for the purpose of the layout, in which the plaintiff was said to have been allotted a site, whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit and in the absence of the layout plan and locating the suit property in the layout plaint, whether the Courts below had not failed in their duty to address the evidence placed before it and overlooking the same? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 10. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has filed IA No.1/2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC R/w Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC, producing three additional documents and seeking to take them into consideration. 11. In view of the above, apart from the substantial question of law framed, the following point that would arise for consideration is: (i) Whether the appellant has made out a ground to produce additional documents as required u/o 41 R 27 of CPC to allow IA No.1/2013? 12. Heard Sri. A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant, Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 6, Sri. Gopala Krishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3 and Sri. S.Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 through video conferencing. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 13. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he purchased the schedule property from the earlier owner G.Obaiah under the registered sale deed dated 04.02.2004. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 This document is produced by the plaintiff as per Ex.P2. The plaintiff has also produced Ex.P.1 - the registered sale certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of G.Obaiah on 08.09.1997. One of the condition found in Ex.P1 is that the purchaser shall not further alienate the property for the period of 10 years. It is also stated that if any of the conditions mentioned therein are violated, the sale certificate is liable to be cancelled. Relying on this condition found in Ex.P1, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is blatant violation of the condition. Therefore, the sale deed Ex.P2 is void-ab-initio. 14. The conditions mentioned in Ex.P1 make it clear that if any of the conditions mentioned therein are violated, the appropriate authority can proceed to cancel the sale certificate. Under such circumstances, the sale deed i.e., executed by G.Obaiah in favour of the plaintiff as per Ex.P2 could be only a voidable document at the instance of appropriate authority i.e., defendant No.3. But cannot be a document of void-ab-initio. Admittedly, the sale certificate is not cancelled by the appropriate authority till date. No such action was initiated in that regard. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 15. By producing Exs.P1 and 2, the plaintiff has prima- facie proved his possession over the property since from the date of Ex.P2 i.e., 04.02.2004. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and during cross - examination, it is suggested to the witness that the plaintiff has encroached a portion of the defendant’s land. By putting stones and claiming right over the same. The suggestion itself suggests that the plaintiff is in possession of the property by encroaching the same. If that is so, the defendant may have to take necessary steps to take possession from the plaintiff, which the defendant has not taken till date. 16. Defendant No.2 has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief asserting that remaining 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.133/1 is mutated as Sy.No.133/1 and it is in possession of the defendants. It is also contended by defendant No.2 that he could obtain NOC to alienate the property in Sy.No.133/1 by National Highway Authorities. But the plaintiff is unnecessarily, entering the premises with an intention to trespass over the same. However, DW1 admits that G.Obaiah had sold the site in question to the plaintiff and asserted that G.Obaiah or the plaintiff were never in possession of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 property in question. During cross-examination of DW1, specific suggestion put to the witness that one of the sites in the layout by the Municipality was purchased by one G.Obaiah. Witness has given a specific answer that the site purchased by G.Obaiah does not fall within the land belonging to him. He also admits that in the sites that are formed in the layout by the Municipality, he is not having any right, title or interest. He admits that such layout and the sites were formed by the Municipality in Sy.No.133/1 of Chitradurga. Later, he pleads ignorance that site No.531 i.e., the schedule property sold in favour of G.Obaiah, who in turn sold it to plaintiff. 17. The materials on record including the documents that are relied on by the plaintiff prima-facie discloses that he is having title over the schedule property, as per registered sale deed dated 04.02.2024 - Ex.P2 and the parent deed being the sale certificate Ex.P1 issued in favour of G.Obaiah. Admittedly, both these registered documents were never challenged by the defendants. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri.Anathula - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 Sudhakar Vs.P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others1 to contend that the plaintiff must prove his title over the property in respect of which, he is claiming permanent injunction when a cloud is cast over his title. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision, at paragraph No.21 summarized the position with regard to the suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property and held that a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title. It is also held that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title even in the suit for injunction. It is made clear that, if a person is having clear title and possession, sues for injunction he should not be driven to a costlier remedy or filing a suit for declaration, merely because, some vexatious claim is made over the same. 1 2008 (4) SCC 594 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 19. learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao Vs. Indukuru Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others2 to contend that a cloud is cast on the title of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff must prove the title and unless that is done, he is not entitled for permanent injunction. 20. The Court at paragraph No.35 held as under: "It is a settled principle of law that in order to claim prohibitory (temporary or permanent) injunction, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prima facie prove apart from establishing other two ingredients, namely, irreparable loss and injury that his possession over the suit land is "legal". In this case, it was not so and nor it could be for the simple reason that as far back on 21.08.1976, the Tribunal had already declared the land held by the plaintiff to be in excess of the ceiling limits prescribed under the Act. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was neither holding the land nor could he be held to be in its lawful possession so as to enable him to exercise any ownership rights against any other private party over the suit land. The appellant had then very limited rights left to exercise under the Act in relation to the 2 (2017) 7 SCC 694 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 suit land and such rights were available to him only against the State. Such is not the case here." 21. Thus, it is very much clear that it is necessary for the plaintiff to prima-facie prove his title over the property apart from possession and interference by the defendants. In the present case, the plaintiff by producing Ex.P1 - the sale certificate and the sale deed – Ex.D2, is successful in proving that he was having title over the property. It is the settled position of law that if defendant denies the title of the plaintiff, that itself will amount to interference for which, the plaintiff may be entitled for injunction. 22. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I am of the opinion that the decisions referred to above will not help the defendant, to challenge the impugned judgment and the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the documents that are produced by the defendants especially Ex.D2, 33 guntas continued to form a part of Sy.No.133/1 while, remaining 4.04 acres of land which was - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 acquired for the purpose of forming layout was re-numbered rather mutated as Sy.No.133/3 as could be seen from mutation register extract Ex.D6. These documents are not in dispute. Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 make it clear that 33 guntas of land which was in possession of the defendants is subdivided into 133/1P whereas, 4.04 acres of land acquired for the purpose of forming the layout was mutated as Sy.No.133/3 as could be seen from Ex.D6. But that itself will not prove the contention of the defendants and claim over the schedule property. When the defendants claim that the schedule property falls within the 33 guntas of land, which is retained by him, the burden shifts on the defendants to establish the same. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff has not produced layout plan. It is a public document, even if the plaintiff has not produced the same, the defendant could have produce the same. The appellant by filing IA No.1/2013 has produced copy of the layout plan. Even if the said document is taken into consideration, it establishes that the schedule property ie., site bearing No.531 is part of the layout as claimed by the plaintiff and it will not in any manner help the defendant. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 25. One more document is produced along with IA No.1/2013 i.e., the Resolution passed by the City Municipality, referring to site No.529 that the said site was my mistake shown in the land belonging to private person and therefore, relinquished the right over the same, by refunding the amount to the purchaser. But schedule property bearing Site No.531 is far away from site No.529 as, site No.530 is abutting site No.529 which is referred to in the document No.2 produced as additional document. Between site No.530 and 531, there is a road formed in the layout. Admittedly, there is no Resolution passed by the city municipality in respect of either 530 or 531 or 532 for that matter. Under such circumstances, even this additional document will not help the appellant to lay his claim over the schedule property. 26. Acquisition of 4.04 acres of land for the purpose of forming layout is not in dispute. Defendant being in possession of remaining extent of 33 guntas in Sy.No.133 is also not in dispute. The revenue records produced by both the parties are also not in dispute. When the defendant claims that the schedule property is part of 33 guntas of land retained by him, he could have made some efforts to prove the same as burden - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 shifts on him to establish his defence since the plaintiff prima- facie proved his title and possession over the schedule property by producing Exs.P1 to 3, which are undisputed documents. 27. Learned counsel for defendant No.3 – the Deputy Commissioner supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and submits that the schedule property is part of the layout that was formed. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on appreciation and re-appreciation of the material on record formed concurrent findings regarding possession of the schedule property by the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts. Even if all the independent documents referred to in the substantial question of law are taken into consideration, I do not find any justification to brand the findings of both the Courts below as either perverse or illegal or passed by overlooking the relevant documents. Under such circumstance, I answer the substantial questions of law against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43359 RSA No. 1297 of 2009 28. The additional documents produced by the appellant by filing IA No.1/2013 even if taken into consideration, will not help the defendants in any manner. Therefore, the application IA No.1/2013 is liable to be dismissed. 29. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, IA.1/2013 filed for production of additional documents is also dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6