- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2022 (InJ/DEC/RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAROJI BAI W/O RAJANAIKA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O A HARIHARAPURA VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103. 2. SMT SARASWATHI W/O MANJANAIKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O HALEKALANAYAKANA HALLI KASABA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103. 3. SMT KAVITHA W/O SRINIVASANAIKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O A HARIHARAPURA VILLAGE BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103. 4. SMT. JYOTHI W/O PRAKASH NAIKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O A LINGAGONDANAHALLI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 BANAVARA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103. 5. SMT. SUNANDA BAI W/O CHANDRA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O HOVENAHALLI THANDYA SAKARAYAPATANA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KUMARA K.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S. DEVAMMA W/O SAMAYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S 1(A). L.S. TRIVENI NAIK W/O VASANTH NAIK R/AT 10/577, VARJAN NILAYA, R/O VERJAN NILAYA, ARSIKERE BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA HASSAN - 573 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A)) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.16/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2019 PASSED IN OS No.294/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.1(a). 2. Defendants are the appellants in the present appeal challenging the decree passed in O.S.No.294/2016 granting permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties) which was confirmed in RA No.16/2020: ಾಸನ ೆ ಅರೕ ೆೆ ಾಲೂಕು, ಾಾವರ ೋಬ, ಯೂರು ಾಮ ಪಂ!ಾ"#ೆ $ೇದ ಾಾವರ ಉಪ'ೊಂದ( ಕ!ೇೆ ಒಳಪಟ,. 1. -ಾ#ಹ/ ಾಮದ ಸ0ೆ1 ನಂ: 8/3 ರ2 0-15 ಗುಂ4ೆ ಆ ಾರ 1-71 6ೈ$ೆಯುಳ/ 8ಾಾಯು# ಜ:ೕ;ೆ !ೆಕು<ಬಂ=: ಪ?ವ1 ೆ<: ಚಂBಾ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಪCDಮ ೆ<: ಲEFಣ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಉತ#ರ ೆ<: ದI2ಂಗಪJ ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ದKಣ ೆ< : Lರು6ಾEಪJನವರ ಜ:ೕನು. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 2. ಎ.ಹಹರ ಾಮದ ಸ0ೆ1 ನಂ: 6/4 ರ2 0-25 ಗುಂ4ೆ ಆ ಾರ 0-62 6ೈ$ೆಯುಳ/ ಖುW ಜ:ೕ;ೆ !ೆಕು<ಬಂ=: ಪ?ವ1 ೆ<: ಚಂBಾ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಪCDಮ ೆ<: ಸತ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಉತ#ರ ೆ<: ;ಂಾ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ದKಣ ೆ<: $ೇ0ಾ'ಾಯ< ನವರ ಜ:ೕನು 3. ಎ.ಹಹರ ಾಮದ ಸ0ೆ1 ನಂ: 5/2 ರ2 0-20 ಗುಂ4ೆ ಆ ಾರ 23-40 6ೈ$ೆಯುಳ/ ಖುW ಜ:ೕ;ೆ !ೆಕು<ಬಂ=: ಪ?ವ1 ೆ<: ಕೃZಾ['ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಪCDಮ ೆ<: ತಮ\ಯ] ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಉತ#ರ ೆ<: ಕೃZಾ['ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ದKಣ ೆ<: Bೊಡ_ಳ/ಪJನವರ ನವರ ಜ:ೕನು 4. ಎ.ಹಹರ ಾಮದ ಸ0ೆ1 ನಂ: 5/2ಎ ರ2 0-17 ಗುಂ4ೆ ಆ ಾರ 23-40 6ೈ$ೆಯುಳ/ ಖುW ಜ:ೕ;ೆ !ೆಕು<ಬಂ= ಪ?ವ1 ೆ<: `ಾಕೂರ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಪCDಮ ೆ< : ಕೃZಾ[ 'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಉತ#ರ ೆ< : ಗಂಾ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ದKಣ ೆ<: ಪaಟ,ಾಜು ನವರ ಜ:ೕನು. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 5. ಎ.ಹಹರ ಾಮದ ಸ0ೆ1 ನಂ: 6/2 ರ2 0-34 ಗುಂ4ೆ ಆ ಾರ 0-84 6ೈ$ೆಯುಳ/ ಖುW ಜ:ೕ;ೆ bಕು< ಬಂ= ಪ?ವ1 ೆ<: ಚಂBಾ'ಾcಕ ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಪCDಮ ೆ< : ಕೃZಾ[ 'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಉತ#ರ ೆ< : 'ಾಾ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ದKಣ ೆ< : $ೇ0ಾ'ಾಯ< ನವರ ಜ:ೕನು. 6. ಎ.ಹಹರ ಾಮದ ಸ0ೆ1 ನಂ: 26 ರ2 0-13 ಗುಂ4ೆ ಆ ಾರ 4-32 6ೈ$ೆಯುಳ/ ಖುW ಜ:ೕ;ೆ !ೆಕು<ಬಂ= ಪ?ವ1 ೆ< : ಕೃZಾ[ 'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಪCDಮ ೆ< `ಾಕೂರ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು, ಉತ#ರ ೆ<: ರ$ೆ# ದKಣ ೆ<: `ಾಕೂರ'ಾಯ< ರವರ ಜ:ೕನು. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties by contending that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the gift deed executed by her father for which the defendants are also consenting witness. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 3.2. It is further contended that defendants did not vacate the premises and therefore, she had to approach the police and file the suit for permanent injunction. 4. Suit on contest, came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.16/2020. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.18 to 21 as under: “18. In this case, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in facts or on law. It is contended that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts before this Court and has filed the present suit with a malafied intention to knock of the suit properties. It is admitted that the plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Sowmya Naika. During his lifetime Sowmya Naika had filed C.Mis.No.275/2014 U/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. The said case was compromised with plaintiff and defendants agreeing that they would each pay Rs.500/ per month to their father Sowmya Naika. The plaintiff has violated the terms of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 the compromise order and has filed this suit only to knock of the property of the defendants. Hence, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. 19. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the father of the plaintiff was one Sowmya Naika. He had 7 daughters and no male issues. The plaintiff is the eldest daughter while defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the other daughters of Sowmya Naika. According to the plaintiff, after few years of her marriage, her husband deserted her and hence, she was residing with her parents and looking after the entire suit schedule properties. She got all her sisters married. About 6 months prior to filing of the suit Sowmya Naika passed away. As the plaintiff had taken over the responsibilities of the family, managed the properties of her father and considering that plaintiff did not have husband and children, her father gifted the suit properties to her on 11.10.2004 by way of a registered gift deed. Accordingly, the revenue records have been changed into the name of the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff has been cultivating the suit schedule properties. The defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties have interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same giving rise to the cause of action for filing the suit under appeal. 20. In this case, it is seen from the oral and documentary evidence on record that the defendants admit the execution of the registered gift deed by Sowmya Naika in favour of the plaintiff herein. According to the defendants, after the execution of the registered gift deed (Ex.P.8), the plaintiff did not take proper care of Sowmya Naika due to which he filed a miscellaneous petition seeking maintenance from his children. In the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 said case, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a compromise wherein the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.1,000/ and each of the defendants agreed to pay Rs.500/ to Sowmya Naika. The plaintiff did not comply with the compromise. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. A perusal of Ex.P.8 shows that the same was executed on 11.10.2004 and on the same day Sowmya Naika handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff accepted the gift and took over the possession of the suit property as is evident from Exs.P.1 to P.7 which are the RTCs and Patta books in respect of the suit property. Ex.P.1 to P.8 clearly show possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. On the contrary, the defendants have not produced any documents to show they are in actual physical possession of the suit property. The documents produced by the defendants only show that a maintenance case was filed and a compromise was entered in the said case. Hence, it is seen that the documentary evidence on record point towards possession of the suit property by the plaintiff as on the date of filing the present suit under appeal. Hence, the Trial Court's appreciation of documentary evidence is correct. 21. Now coming to oral evidence on record. The perusal of crossexamination of PW.1 shows that PW.1 has given a stray admission that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The cross-examination of PW.1 when read in toto clearly points out that PW.1 has denied suggestion made to her with regard to possession of the suit property by the defendants herein. One stray admission is not sufficient to oust the plaintiff from the Court when there are documentary evidence and denials by the plaintiff. Evidence of Pws.2 and 3 show that these - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 witnesses have also supported the case of the plaintiff with regard to possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. The evidence adduced by the defendants also does not show that at any point of time the defendants were in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, it is seen that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the ocular evidence on record. There is absolutely no grounds made out for this Court to interfere with the findings given by the learned Trial Judge. The Trial Court has properly appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence on record and has given proper findings which do not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.” 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendants are in this appeal, on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: GROUNDS The Judgment and decree passed by the HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT ARSIKERE R.A.No.16/2020 dated 21.02.2022 against the appellants are erroneous, contrary to the facts and evidence on record and further contrary to law. in That, in cross examination of PW.1 admitted that the defendants are in physical possession of the suit property, the first appellant court without looking of the admission made by PW-1, passed the order of injunction is erroneous and the first appellant court held that, stray admission is not sufficient to oust the plaintiff from the court is not acceptable in law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 That, first appellant court held the defendants admitted the gift deed executed by their father, but the first appellant court and trail court failed to appreciate that, the plaintiff never put to an physical possession of the suit schedule property and till now the defendants are in physical possession of the suit property. That, plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hand, and she made statement that, she is physical possession of the suit schedule property, but she is not in physical possession of the suit schedule property. That till now the Defendants are in physical possession and cultivating the land, hence granting an injunction only on documentary evidence without actual having physical possession of the plaintiff is bad in law. That, first appellant court failed consider that, after execution of the registered gift deed Ex.P-8, the plaintiff did not take proper care of Sowmya Naika due to which he filed a miscellaneous petition seeking maintenance from his children in the said case, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a compromise wherein the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- and each of the defendants agreed to pay Rs.500/- to Sowmya Naika and after compromise the plaintiff did not comply with the compromise. That, the plaintiff never put to an possession of the suit schedule property. The Learned first Appellant Court has taken a narrow and technical approach in the above matter and said that after execution of the gift deed she put to an physical possession of the suit schedule property, but failed to consider the admission of the PW-1 in the cross examination. Hence the call for interference of this Hon'ble court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW 1. Whether the lower appellant Court justified in allowed the appeal in part in R.A.No.16/2020 thereby confirming the judgment of the suit of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.294/2019 by learned Trial Court? 2. Whether the lower appellant court justifying the PW-1 admitted that she is not in physical possession of the suit schedule property by applying the principle under section 58 of Evidence Act for granting the permanent injunction without having physical possession of the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the first appellant Court justified that, plaintiff is in physical possession to grant permanent injunction after admission of PW-1 that, she is not in physical possession of the suit schedule property? 4. Whether the first appellant Court justified that, without having physical possession of the land an grant a permanent injunction to the plaintiff? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that defendants were in possession of the suit properties as per the admission made by P.W.1 in her cross-examination and therefore, suit for permanent injunction ought to have been dismissed and suit for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 possession was required to filed by the plaintiff to obtain possession from the defendants from the suit property. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the alleged admission cannot be read in isolation with the voluntary answer given by P.W.1 in her cross-examination which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously including the deposition of P.W.1. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the property belongs to the father of the plaintiff and defendants. There is a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff by the father of the plaintiff. 12. After execution of the registered gift deed, there were some arrangements as to the payment of the maintenance i.e., Rs.1,000/- from the plaintiff and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 Rs.500/- from the remaining sisters towards the maintenance of the parents. It is contended by the defendants that condition is not fulfilled by the plaintiff. 13. Be it what it may, if at all, if there is any non- payment by the plaintiff during the lifetime of the father, they would have taken necessary steps to cancel the gift deed. At any rate, defendants have no right to challenge the gift made in favour of the plaintiff. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 15. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only confirmed the decreeing of the suit but also supplemented additional reasons for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as referred to supra. 16. Adverting to the alleged admission of P.W.1 is concerned, as is rightly contended on behalf of the plaintiff, the said admission cannot be read in isolation - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36021 RSA No. 621 of 2022 with the voluntary answer given by P.W.1 wherein she has stated that she is in possession of the suit property. 17. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants cannot be countenanced in law that they are continuing with the possession of the suit property. 18. Hence, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration. 19. Accordingly, following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT: BHK