- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 1a. 1b. 1c. 1d. SHRI NAGARAJ, S/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RA/T NO.47, 7TH CROSS, SIRSI ROAD, CHAMRAJAPET, BANGALORE - 560 018. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs SMT. VANAJA V., W/O LATE NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SMT. YOGITHA, D/O LATE NAGARAJA, W/O VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SMT. ARPITHA, D/O LATE NAGARAJA, W/O PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SRI N. TEJESH GANESH, S/O LATE NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(d) ALL ARE R/A NO.1233/26, 4TH MAIN ROAD, "E" BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI T.M.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR LRs OF DECEASED APPELLANT) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 AND: SHRI SHANKAR, S/O C. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1189, 11TH A CROSS, 7TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS CHAITANYA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) RFA FILED U/O 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S NO.2377/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.10), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 passed by XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH no.10), in O.S.no.2377/2008, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri T.M. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in suit filed for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 property namely Site no.66 formed in Sy.no.154 of Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'. 3. It was submitted, in suit plaintiff had stated that he was in possession and enjoyment of suit property having purchased it under registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.1984. Subsequently, he had obtained building plan/license and had put up construction thereon. On 28.03.2008, defendant came near suit property and sought to dig pits for construction. In view of same, suit was filed. 4. On service of summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying plaint averments. Defendant specifically contended that defendant’s father C. Ramakrishna was absolute owner of suit property having purchased it from one D. Raghavendra under registered Sale Deed dated 06.10.1995. It was stated that plaintiff had earlier filed O.S.no.8831/1995 against father of defendant i.e. C. Ramakrishna. After his death during pendency of suit, it was dismissed on 24.06.2004. Suppressing said fact, present suit was filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 5. It was further stated that after death of C. Ramakrishna, defendant along with his mother and sister had succeeded to suit property. And under Release Deed dated 05.05.2007, defendant and his sister had relinquished their rights in favour of their mother, who had thereafter executed registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant, thus he had become absolute owner of suit property and was in possession. It was stated that plaintiff's claim about having purchased suit property from GPA Holder of D. Raghavendra would not be tenable as neither D. Raghavendra nor GPA Holder - Gundappa had right to sell suit property to plaintiff and sought for dismissal. 6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following: ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference? 3) To what order? 7. In trial, plaintiff and Smt.Sumithra were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. On other - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 hand, defendant examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D9. 8. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 and 2 in negative and issue no.3 by dismissing suit leading to this appeal. 9. It was submitted, suit was dismissed without proper evaluation of material on record namely registered sale deed, building plan/license etc., which would not only establish plaintiff's title, but also possession. It was submitted impugned judgment was cryptic with observation that plaintiff ought to have filed suit for declaration of title. It was submitted, said observation was not justified and impugned judgment and decree called for interference. 10. On other hand, Miss Chaitanya S.G., learned counsel for defendant opposed appeal. It was submitted present appeal would not be tenable in view of fact that plaintiff/appellant had accepted decree and filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.no.6702/2018 presently pending before II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 (CCH no.17), for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to suit property and sought dismissal of appeal. 11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree and record. 12. From above, point that would arise for consideration: "Whether judgment and decree passed by trial Court calls for interference?" 13. Perusal of impugned judgment would reveal only reasoning to be contained in para no.12 is as follows: "12. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P9 the sale deed of PW2 Sumithra. Ex.P9 evident that PW2 purchased site No.52 formed in Sy.No.154 from Achamma and A.Raghavendra through GPA Holder Gundappa on 06.09.1984. On going through the cross examination of PW2 her's evidence is not specific about the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. No doubt PW2 is the owner of site No.52 by virtue of Ex.P9 but Ex.P9 does not disclose the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore Ex.P9 and the oral evidence of PW2 will not help the case of the plaintiff. A perusal of documentary evidence Ex.D1 to D5 rebut the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff and emanates doubt about the plaintiff's possession over suit schedule property. The title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed. That being the case the plaintiff ought to have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 title over the suit schedule property. Looking to the over all evidence the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property is doubtful. Thus the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit." 14. Trial Court after adverting to rival pleadings in brief and referring to issues had also referred to oral/documentary evidence. But, main reason for dismissal of suit was defendant's rival claim for title in respect of suit property. And coming to conclusion that plaintiff had to file comprehensive suit for declaration of title in respect of suit property, suit was dismissed. There is no detailed examination of material on record insofar as possession over suit property. 15. At same time, filing of O.S.no.6702/2018 comprehensive suit for declaration of title etc. in respect of suit property by present plaintiff against defendant is also not disputed. If it is so, parties would be at liberty to agitate their rights in respect of suit property in said suit and dismissal of present suit which was only for injunction would not come in way. In view of above, this Court would not require to give findings on each issue dealt with by trial Court herein. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29321 RFA No. 566 of 2016 16. Point for consideration is answered in negative. Hence, following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed, confirming trial Court judgment and decree that plaintiff ought to have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title etc. in relation to suit property. (ii) It is clarified that findings/observation by trial Court in present suit would not come in way of trial Court in O.S.no.6702/2018, deciding matter based on material placed by parties in said suit. In view of dismissal of appeal, pending interlocutory applications does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30