- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMUEL S. DANDIN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PREMKUMAR S/O A PUSHPA RAJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, BEHIND SAI BABA TEMPLE, P.W.D. CROSS, AKASH NAGAR, A. NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 016. 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. 3. SRI. UMA SHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO. 76/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO. 1901/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL II CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Samuel S. Dandin, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.Prabhakar, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1. 2. Present second is filed challenging the decree of injunction granted in favour of contesting respondent No.1 in O.S.No.1901/2006 confirmed in RA No.76/2020. 3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience who are the appellant and respondents in this appeal. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 4.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and among them, defendant No.1 is the vendor along with Parvathamma in respect of the property bearing site No.21, Katha No.25/1/36 formed in property bearing Sy.No.25/1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 situated in Seegehalli village, krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet, which is now under the jurisdiction of CMC, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru bounded on East by site No.20, West by site No.22, North by site No.10 and South by the road. 5. Plaintiff contended that defendant No.3 without having any right, title or interest along with other defendants started interfering with the suit property and therefore, plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint. When the police were unable to restrain the illegal interference, plaintiff filed the suit seeking for an order of injunction based on the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and Parvathamma. 6. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the written statement filed by defendant No.3, noted that defendant No.3 has no independent right over the suit property and plaintiff is in possession of the suit property based on the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 Paravathamma and revenue entries have been mutated in the name of plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.76/2020. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the legal and factual aspects, not only upheld the decreeing of the suit but also supplemented additional reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by defendant No.3. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 is before this Court, on following grounds and has raised substantial questions of law has been raised: GROUNDS  “The appellant submits that inconsistent cross examination of P.W.1 during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 the respondent/plaintiff admits that there is no khatha as on the date of filing the suit and also the respondent/plaintiff admits that the defendant is in possession of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 suit schedule property even though the court below comes to the conclusion that in the sale deed mentioned as possession was delivered. And also the court below made an observation and mentioned in the para No. 14 that the argument of defendant No.3 stated that as on the date of suit there was no khata in the name of plaintiff/respondent and Ex.p1 survey Number is not mentioned, and also the admission given by the respondent/ plaintiff in his cross examination are contrary to his own case. Hence the respondent/ plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.  The appellant submits that the suit is one for bare injunction, when the respondent/ plaintiff himself admits that there is no khata as on the state of filing the suit, and the respondent/plaintiff admits that the defendant No.3 is in possession. When such being the case the suit itself is not maintainable and the main issues only for possession and interference. When there is no possession and khatha as on date of sult, there is no cause of action to file the Hence the respondent/plaintiff heron is disqualified getting above suit and it does not survive, it has to be dismissed. the Judgment and Decree of permanent Injunction. Hence it is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble court.  The appellant submits that when there is no title of the property of the respondent, and there is no khatha as on date of filing the suit, how the court below come to the conclusion after in consistent cross examination with regard to document and alleged possession, even though there is no alleged possession over the suit schedule property. However the trail court decree the suit.  The appellant submit that the properties were partitioned in the family of the appellant and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 accordingly the suit schedule property are fallen into the share of the appellant and the appellant is in the possession of the same, the same is admitted by the plaintiff himself during the course of the cross examination. The said aspect was considered by the trial court.  The court has erred in law in passing the Judgment and Decree in favour of the respondent without looking into documents and possession over the suit schedule property. The court below has not looked into the consideration or appreciated the documents marked by both parties.  The court below has not looked into the documents relied upon the respondent especially khatha and possession, and moreover the plaintiff admits that the defendant No.3 is in possession. Inspite of the same the court below come to the conclusion the respondent is in possession of the property which is not correct in the eye of law.  The court below came to the wrong conclusion that there is no title and also khatha as on the date of the suit, the question of considering the possession does not arise and injunction granted in favor of respondent/plaintiff which is Illegal. However the 1st appellate court has also not considered the said aspects and dismissed the appeal.  That the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court has proceeded on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and hence is liable to be set aside.” SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW “a) Whether the first appellate court was right in law confirming the judgment and decree passed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 by the trial court in OS No.1901/2006 before the Principle Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural Court at Bengaluru and holding that the plaintiffs have proved their lawful possession in respect of the schedule property? b) Whether contrary to the evidence and materials on record, the first appellate court was justified in law based on erroneous finding and reasoning in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S No.1901/2006? c) Whether the first appellate court right in justifying the trial court judgment without properly looking into the evidence on record inconsistent cross examination of P.W.1 during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 the respondent/plaintiff admits that there is no khatha as on the date of admits that the defendant/appellant is in filing the suit and also the respondent/plaintiff possession of the suit schedule property even though the court below comes to the conclusion that in the sale deed mentioned as possession was delivered? d) Whether the first appellate court was right and justified in law in accepting the case put forth by the respondent and in holding that they are in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? e) Whether in law and under the circumstances of the case, the first appellate court was right in wholly confirming the judgment and decree passed by the court and granting the relief/s as sought for by the plaintiff in the suit?” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that both the Courts failed to note the property which was the part of Sy.No.25/1 and entire land in Sy.No.25/1 measuring 10 acres was in exclusive possession of defendant No.3 which has been ignored by both the Courts and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondents supports the impugned judgment. 12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has laid the claim in the suit for permanent injunction based on the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 along with Parvathamma. Later on, he has paid the tax to the revenue authorities after transfer of necessary revenue entries. 14. When there was an interference with regard to the suit property by defendant No.3 and others, the plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint vide Ex.P.13. 15. Exs.P.15 to 18 are the copies of the sale deeds in respect of neighbouring properties as well. Photographs have been placed on record by the plaintiff to depict the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. 16. Admittedly, Sy.No.25/1 even according to the appellant was measuring more than 10 acres. Defendant No.1 along with Parvathamma sold a site thereof which was carved out in Sy.No.25/1 and recitals in the sale deed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 makes out a clear case that there was a title in favour of defendant No.1 and Parvathamma to convey the individual sites to the people like plaintiff. 17. Further, if defendant No.3 has got any right, title or interest over the suit property, the only remedy for the appellant is to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and establish his rights. 18. Plaintiff was successful in establishing before the Trial Court that he is in lawful possession of the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed and revenue entries were mutated in his name and he was in actual and physical possession of the suit property by placing the photographs. 19. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only reappreciated the material evidence but also supplied additional reasons in upholding the decree of injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32972 RSA No. 444 of 2022 20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and in the absence of any other contra materials placed by defendant No.1 to substantiate that the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the property, decreeing of the suit by the Court below, upheld by the First Appellate Court needs no interference before this Court. 21. As such, substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT: BHK