- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1328 OF 2009 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAYARAMA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS A) SMT. B.R. SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. B) SMT. SHAMALA, W/O LATE RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. C) SRI. KARTHIK KUMAR, S/O LATE RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. D) SRI. YESHWANTH, S/O LATE RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. E) SRI. GURUVA REDDY, S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. (A) TO (E) ARE R/AT. NO.248, OPP. WATER TANK, DEVARABISANA HALLI, BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 103. F) SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 G) SRI. ASHOK J S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. H) SMT. SHAMALA J, D/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, I) SRI. ANIL KUMAR J, S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. (F) TO (I) ARE AT NO.175, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, DODDANAGAMANGALA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 100. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V. VISWANATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT -1 (A-I)) AND: SRI. CHANDRAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O OBALA REDDY, R/O DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK (PLAINTIFF IN THE TRIAL COURT AND APPELLANT IN THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.G. PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/O 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:12.6.2009 PASSED IN RA.NO.152/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SESSIONS, JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:6.1.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.568/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The defendant in OS.No.568/1998 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court', for short), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2009 passed in RA.No.152/2006 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court', for short), allowing the appeal, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2006 passed by the Trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 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 filed the suit O.S.No.568/1998 before the Trial Court seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. The schedule appended to the plaint describes the piece and parcel of the property bearing Kaneshumari House list No.20/13 situated within the Gramatana of Doddanagamangala village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 10 guntas with the boundaries mentioned therein (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'). It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant is his brother and they are having two more brothers by name, Muniraju and Venkatesha Reddy. There was a partition between the brothers and the schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 4. It is contended that the defendant started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 property. The plaintiff filed the complaint with the police in that regard. In-spite of that the defendant was bent upon interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, he filed a suit requesting the Trial Court to grant permanent injunction. 5. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement, admitting the relationship between the parties, but denied that the schedule property was allotted to the share of plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was allotted a share measuring 68/175 feet in the property with the boundaries mentioned therein. Similar portion of the property was in occupation of another brother by name Muniraja Reddy. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was measuring 10 guntas with the boundaries mentioned therein are denied. It is contended that the plaintiff is trying to lay claim in respect of the property which belonged to the defendant and therefore prays for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 ISSUES "i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? ii) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant? iii) What order or decree?" 7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1. The defendant has not led any evidence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA.No.152/2006. The First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the materials on record, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 9. As per order dated 24.08.2010, the following substantial question of law were formulated for consideration. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 (i) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court can be sustained in law in view of the admission made by PW-1 in his evidence that the property mentioned in Ex.P1 does not pertain to the suit schedule property? 10. Heard Sri. V. Viswanatha Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent remained absent and unrepresented. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff has not produced any material to substantiate his contention that he is the owner, in possession of the schedule property. In the schedule, he claims 10 guntas of land. But in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that the total extent of land within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule property measures 20 guntas. He also admits that an extent of land measuring 30x40 feet was sold by the defendant in favour of one Srinivasa Reddy. The said Srinivasa Reddy is not made as a party to the suit. Even though the plaintiff claims 10 gutnas of land, the boundaries mentioned in the schedule is pertaining to 20 guntas of land, which is clearly admitted by the plaintiff. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 12. Learned counsel submitted that Ex.P1 is the only document that is produced by the plaintiff. It stands in the name of one Gura Reddy. It is not in the name of the plaintiff or his father. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to prove either title or possession over the schedule property. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. But the First Appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit solely on the ground that the defendant is the brother of the plaintiff, and the defendant admitted partition between the brothers. The First Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the property described in the schedule in fact measures 20 guntas and the portion of it has already been sold by the defendant to the third party. Under such circumstances, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 13. The plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the schedule property i.e., the land measures 10 guntas and the same was allotted to the plaintiff in a partition. There is reference to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 family partition that was held on a particular day. But the date of such partition is kept blank in the plaint. Even though the plaint was amended and the amended plaint was filed, even then the date of such partition is not referred to nor any document, in support of such partition is produced. Ofcourse, the plaintiff and defendant are brothers. But admittedly, there are two other brothers, who were allotted with a share in the property left by their father. The defendant in his written statement categorically denied the right of the plaintiff as claimed against the schedule property. 14. Plaintiff examined as PW1. During cross-examination he categorically admits that the schedule property described in the schedule in fact measures 20 guntas. He also admits that the defendant sold a portion measuring 30X40 feet to one Srinivasa Reddy from out of the suit schedule property. When such evidence is available on record, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved his lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property to get the perpetual injunction against the defendant. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 15. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1. It is the only document produced by the plaintiff. Ex.P1 is the property extract issued by the Konappana Agrahara Gram Panchayath for the year 1998-99. Strangely, it refers to property bearing No.13, standing in the name of one Gura Reddy. It is not explained by the plaintiff as to, who is Gura Reddy referred to in Ex.P1. It is pertinent to note that during cross - examination, the attention of PW1 was drawn to Ex.P1 and the name of Gura Reddy mentioned in Cl.No.4, as the person in occupation of the property. PW1 categorically states that Ex.P1 is pertaining to some other property, and it is not connected to the schedule property. Under such circumstances, there is absolutely no material placed by the plaintiff to prove the existence of the schedule property and he being in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought. 16. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court on flimsy grounds held that - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 the defendant has not denied the partition between the brothers and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to prove his title or possession over the schedule property and proceeded to decree the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is against the pleadings, evidence and also the documents relied on by the plaintiff. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 17. In view of the discussions held above, I answer the substantial question of law in favour of appellant/defendant and against respondent/plaintiff. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 12.06.2009 passed in RA No.152/2006 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track - III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2006 passed in OS.No.568/1998 on the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43700 RSA No. 1328 of 2009 file of the learned Additional II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore is restored. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM/BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3