- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. BHANUMATHI W/O NAGESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. MANJULA W/O CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. MARIGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT FARM HOUSE, GURANAHALLY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 571 501. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.S.PARIKSHITH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D.M.SHYLAJA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 1(A) BASAVARAJU D. M., S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 1(B) SRI GURUPRASAD S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.167 1ST CROSS, VIVEKNAGARA BENGALURU – 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B)) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO. 54/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO. 115/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court whereby granting the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.115/2007 by its judgment dated 09.11.2017 and also the concurrent findings of the appellate Court in R.A.No.54/2017 dated 15.09.2021, confirming the judgment of trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties is that, it is contented that suit property was earlier in Survey No.38 of Gooranahalli Village. One Chikkegowda was the original owner of the said property and his sons Lakkanna and Marigowda got converted the said property measuring 30 guntas as per the orders dated 13.06.1983. Accordingly, Katha No.92 was made in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 Gooranahalli Grama Panchayath. Out of 30 kuntas, Lakkanna and Marigowda sold the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 02.08.1983, in favour of plaintiff’s husband D.M.Panchaksharaya. Since then, plaintiff’s husband had been in possession of the suit property. The suit property was brought within the limits of Channarayapatna Municipality and self-assessment number was also given to the suit property. After the death of the plaintiff’s husband, the plaintiff continued in the possession of the suit property. The municipal records stand in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right or possession over the suit property. But defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the strength of some documents alleged to be executed by defendant No.3 are trying to interfere with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment. Hence, filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. 4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants appeared through their learned counsel and defendant No.3 filed written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 contended that the suit is not maintainable as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 there is no cause of action to file a suit and suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has not properly valued the suit. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. One Mariya of Gooranahalli Village had two sons namely, Mariya and Chikka. Defendant No.3 is the son of the said Mariya. The said Chikka had two sons namely, Lakkanna and Marigowda. The said Lakkanna and Marigowda sold property measuring 34 guntas in Survey No.47/2 on 10.02.1971 to one Deviramma. The said Deviramma sold the said property, mentioning the survey number as ‘38’. The said Deviramma had not acquired any title as per the sale deed dated 10.02.1971. Therefore, Lakkanna and Marigowda had no title to sell the suit property on 02.08.1983 to the plaintiff’s husband. It is their contention that the said Deviramma and Lakkanna and Marikoda got entered into rectification deed dated 11.03.1985, rectifying the sale deed dated 10.02.1971 and thereby rectified the survey number as ‘38’ instead of Survey No.47/2 and extent of 30 guntas instead of 34 guntas. On the said date, possession of the land was handed over. Thereafter, Lakkanna and his family - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 members sold the land measuring 17 guntas in favour of Marigowda under the registered sale deed dated 28.10.2005. 5. Later, defendant No.3 gifted 6 and ½ guntas out of 17 guntas in favour of defendant No.3 on 08.11.2006 and sold 1 ½ guntas under the registered sale deed dated 08.11.2006. Accordingly, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are having title and possession over the suit sale properties. The remaining property measuring 9 guntas is in the possession of defendant No.3. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The above said 17 guntas is in possession of the defendants. The trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issue, whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and whether there is interference by the defendants; whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction. 6. The plaintiff got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P28, by examining herself as PW1 and defendants in order to substantiate their defence, examined defendant No.3 as DW1 and other two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.D1 to D30. The trial Court having considered the material - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 available on record, particularly admission on the part of DW1, who is defendant No.3 in the suit. The trial Court at paragraph No.16 of its judgment has taken note of the cross-examination of DW.1 who has admitted that he was also a signatory to the document at Ex.P1, on the ground of believing that he was under the impression that the signature was sought in respect of Survey No.47. But the fact is that, the father of Lakkanna and Marigowda had property in Survey No.38 and not having any property in Survey No.47 and erroneously, it was mentioned as Survey No.47. Subsequently, rectification deed also came into existence in respect of property in Survey No.38. The trial Court taken note of the statements made during the cross-examination of DW.1 at paragraph No.21, wherein, DW1 admits that Lakkanna and Marigowda sold the property at Survey No.38 to 10 persons and he had no objections for the sale and he has also signed the said sale deeds. 7. The plaintiff also claims that in the said sale deeds, which are 10 in number, she is one of the purchasers and as on the date of the sale deed at Ex.P1, DW.1 who is defendant No.3 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 is also a signatory and has categorically admitted that Lakkanna and Marigowda had no property in Survey No.47 and they had only in Survey No.38. At paragraph No.22, the same is observed the same in detail, with regard to the discrepancy in correct survey number as well as in the plaint description. At paragraph No.24, the trial Court has taken note of the sale deeds at Exs.P6 to P9, executed by the very same Lakkanna and Marigowda in favour of other purchasers and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved the description of the structural property and granted the relief of permanent injunction. 8. The first appellate Court also on reassessing both oral and documentary evidence, at paragraph No.39 and also at paragraph Nos.41 to 44, comes to the conclusion that the property belongs to the family and the suit property was in Survey No.38 and not at Survey No.47. The appellate Court has also taken note of evidence of DW2 and DW3, who have also categorically admitted that the property was in Survey No.38 and Survey No.47 was not in existence. Survey No.38 is in existence and the same belongs to the family of Lakkanna - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 and Marigowda. Therefore, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 9. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal is that, both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction, when the title is disputed and also that the learned counsel would vehemently contend that very identity of the property is also disputed. Learned counsel would contend that Survey No.38 even now is not a converted land and same stands as an agricultural land, which is clear from the documents at Exs.D16 to D30. Both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction, when the property was sold and not in Survey No.38 and when the property was sold as property in Survey No.47 and defendant also claims the title in respect of the structural property and the learned counsel would contend that ignoring the judgment rendered by ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P. BUCHI REDDY reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, when there is a cloud on the title of the property. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 10. The learned counsel for the appellants also relies on the judgment in the case of ANNAMMA VS. PATTAMMA reported in ILR 1991 KAR 1696. He brought to the notice of this Court about the discussions made in paragraph No.17, wherein, observation is made that law is well settled that there cannot be an injunction in respect of an unascertained or undisputed property and contends that both the Courts have committed an error. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents – plaintiffs would submit that the property belongs to Chikkanna, which is not in dispute and that the said Chikkanna having two sons Lakkanna and Marigowda. Both of them have sold the property in the year 1971 in favour of one Smt.Deviramma and while selling the property, it is wrongly mentioned as property in Survey No.47/2. But, the very same property was re-purchased by Lakkanna and Marigowda, in the year 1983 and while reselling the property, having noticed that there was a mistake in mentioning the property survey number ‘47/2’, it is mentioned as the Survey No.38. A rectification deed was entered into in the year 1985, between Lakkanna, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 Marigowda and Deviramma. Hence, it is clear that Lakkanna and Marigowda repurchased the property in respect of Survey No.38. It is the contention of the plaintiff's counsel that Lakkanna and Marigowda had converted the property in the year 1983 and having converted the property, sold the said property in favour of 10 persons and out of 10 persons, the plaintiff’s husband is one amongst the purchasers. The plaintiff’s husband had purchased the same on 02.08.1983 and thereafter, when the plaintiff’s husband passed away, the same is in the name of the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that the property in Survey No.47/2 was not in the family of Lakkanna and Marigowda and the same is admitted by DW.3, who has been examined on behalf of the defendants and defendant No.3 who admits that the property belongs to Lakkanna and Marigowda and also categorically admits that he is a signatory to the said 10 sale deeds, which were executed by Lakkanna and Marigowda. Hence, the very contention of the defendants that the property is different, cannot be accepted and there is no question of different property, when the family was having only the property bearing Survey No.38 and not at Survey - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 No.47/2, which fact has emerged during the course of evidence. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing to the respondents and also the suit filed for the relief of permanent injunction, it has to be noted that only Court has to take note of as on the date of filing of the suit, whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, who has sought for the relief of bare injunction. 13. The plaintiff mainly relies upon the document at Ex.P1, which is sale deed dated 02.08.1983 and there is also no dispute that DW1 is the signatory to all the 10 sale deeds and Ex.P.1 is one among the sale deeds. It is clear that the sale deed is executed by Lakkanna and Marigowda in which DW1 is a signatory and the same is subsequent to the conversion of the agricultural land, which was obtained in the year 1983, in which sites were formed and sold. The same is taken note of by the trial Court at paragraph No.21, wherein, observed that DW.1 categorically admits that Lakkanna and Marigowda sold the property in Survey No.38 to 10 persons and he has not objected to those said sale. Hence, it is clear that family was - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 having land only in Survey No.38 and not in Survey No.47/2. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that DW.1 has signed the sale deed at Ex.P1 believing that the property is in respect of Survey No.47. But when the fact is that, the family was not having any property in Survey No.47/2 and mistakenly it was mentioned in the earlier sale deed of the year 1971 as ‘47/2’, but the same is mentioned as ‘38’, while repurchasing the property by Lakkanna and Marigowda in the year 1980 and in the year 1985, the document of rectification came into existence in respect of the land in Survey No.38, instead of Survey No.47/2. 14. The very contention of the defendants that the title is disputed cannot be accepted once it is admitted by DW1 that he is the signatory to the document of the plaintiff at Ex.P1. Once DW1 admits his signature on the document of Ex.P1 and the very contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the judgment rendered in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P. BUCHI REDDY reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 comes into play. It cannot be accepted and only when there is a cloud on the title, the judgment of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 ANATHULA SUDHAKAR (supra) is applicable and hence, the said judgment of the Apex Court will not come to the aid of the defendants, as the admission on the part of DW1 is very clear that he was a signatory to the sale deed at Ex.P.1 and cannot dispute the title. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also brought to the notice of this Court that the judgments relied by them before the appellate Court in the cases of ANNAMMA VERSUS PUTTAMMA reported in ILR 1991 KAR 1696, wherein also, this Court has held that the law is well settled that there cannot be an injunction in respect of an unascertained or undefined property. In the case on hand, the suit schedule land was sold by Lakkanna and Marigowda after conversion of agricultural land by executing a sale deed at Ex.P.1 and DW1 is the signatory to the said sale deed. Therefore, when there is no uncertainty, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the documents at Exs.D.16 to D.30, is very clear that land in Survey No.38 is not converted land and remains as an agricultural land cannot be accepted. DW1 categorically - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 admitted that sites are formed in the land bearing Survey No.38 and the same is sold and this admission takes away the contention of the appellants. When such being the case, when the property is identifiable and though contend that the description mentioned in the plaint as well as in the sale deed are different by the defendants, the plaintiffs to substantiate their contentions, produced documents at Exs.P6 to P9, who are the adjacent owners, who have purchased the property from the very same Lakkanna and Marigowda and DW1 is the signatory to the documents and he categorically has admitted that on all the sale deeds, he was the signatory and he has not objected for the said sale. The same is discussed in paragraph No.21 and when well reasons are given by the trial Court and the appellate Court has also re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record and with regard to the factual aspect as well as question of law. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and no ground is made out to invoke Section 100 of C.P.C. The contention that the sale deed is in respect of different property cannot be accepted, for the reason that the family was having property at Survey No.38 and not in Survey No.47/2. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43134 RSA No. 1000 of 2021 16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:SS