- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HONNAMMA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LRS., SHRI. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED, 2. SHRI. MAHESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. BASAVARAJ, 3. SHRI. NAGESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. BASAVARAJ, 4. SHRI. SANJEVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. BASAVARAJ, 5. SMT. KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O. BASAVARAJ, APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 371, MARUTHI NILAYA, SUNKADAKATTE, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 094. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N., ADVOCATE AND SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SUMITHRA K.L., SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LR., SMT. SURYA TARA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O. LATE B.D.DAYANANDA, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.50, APT. 11E, RIVER SIDE DRIVE, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-10024, REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER, SHRI. B.D.HARSHA, S/O. LATE D.DASE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 3788, 13TH CROSS, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. UDAY K.S., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4904/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The legal representatives of deceased defendant have approached this Court in this Regular First Appeal assailing the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2023 in OS No. 4904/2008 on the file of 24th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH 6, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, her agents or anyone claiming through her from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 2. Brief facts: The suit property is described as under : “All that piece and parcel of the site No.2, formed in Old Sy. No. 47, New No.47/1B of Srigandhadakaval Village, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk presently bearing Katha No.2525/2577 of Rajarajeswarinagar CMC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 admeasuring East to West 85’ and North to South 60’ bounded as follows : East by : Road West by : Site No.1 North by : Road South by : Remaining property of Smt.Puttahonamma” 3. Suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that one Smt. Puttahonnamma, wife of Late Kariyanna and mother of defendant, acquired Sy No. 47, New No. 47/1B situated at Srigandadakaval Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now coming under the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Ward of the BBMP measuring East-West 175+185/2 and North-South 140+120/2 bounded on the East by road, West by road, North by remaining portion of the property in Survey No. 47/1B and South by T. Prakash's property (acquired property) under a registered partition deed dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 08.05.1967. It is further averred that the plaintiff has acquired the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 09.12.1991 marked as Ex.P2 from Puttahonnamma, and she has been put in possession and has been paying property taxes and holding municipal licence records - Exs. P5 to P12. Alleging interference by the defendant the suit for bare injunction is filed by the plaintiff. 4. During the pendency of the suit the original defendant, Honnamma died and her legal heirs were brought on record. The defendant is none other than the daughter of Puttahonnamma. The defendant claimed the suit property formed part of her share under the registered partition deed dated 03.06.2006 and denied the plaintiff’s possession, the identity of the suit property alleging absence of layout plan or sketch. The defendant contended that under the partition between Puttahonnamma and her daughters including the defendant, Sy. No. 47 was partitioned and the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 fallen to her share, which is Survey No. 47/1B, Katha No. 47 measuring East-West 175+185/2 and North-South 140+120/2(acquired property). 5. The Trial Court Based on the oral and documentary evidence, recorded that the plaintiff has established her possession through the registered sale deed (Ex. P2) and tax license records (Exs. P5 to P12). The Trial Court observed that though no layout plan is produced, the identity of the suit property is sufficiently established through the description of the sale deed and the adjoining property’s sale deed Ex. P22. The Trial Court observed that the partition deed of 2006, relied on by the defendant, is subsequent to the 1991 alienation and hence cannot nullify, or include property already sold. The Trial Court further observed that the defendant's GPA Holder (DW1) during his cross-examination has admitted that his wife had filed OS No. 3109/2008 (Ex. P23) and that Honnamma by way of an affidavit has admitted the execution of the sale deed in favour of Usha Rani - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 (daughter of the plaintiff) and accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the plaint. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the plaintiff has not produced any layout plan or sketch, and hence, identity of the suit property is not established. It is submitted that the defendant claims under a registered partition deed dated 03.06.2006 and she is in possession of the acquired property. It is submitted that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable, as title is seriously disputed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relies upon Ex. P2, the registered sale deed executed by none other than Puttahonnamma, the mother of the original defendant. It is submitted that the tax paid receipts and license at Exs. P5 to P12 prove lawful possession. The admission made by DW1 regarding prior - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 litigation has been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the sale of the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 09.12.1991 is not in dispute, as the defendant's mother, who had sold the property in favour of the plaintiff, had filed an affidavit admitting the description of the property shown in the sale deed and that was a subject matter in OS No. 3109/2008. It is submitted that earlier suits filed by the defendant and her appeals were dismissed, affirming that the sale by Puttahonnamma was valid and the identity of the site was conclusively established. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is : “Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court warrants any interference? 10. The mother of the defendant sold the suit property to the plaintiff in the year 1991(Ex.P2). This document is not denied. The plaintiff has produced tax receipts, building licence and other municipal records - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 proving her continuous possession. In O.S No. 3109 of 2008 filed by the original defendant, the claim for injunction in respect of the acquired property was rejected. RFA No. 951/2012 filed against the said dismissal was also dismissed affirming that the identity of the property was established and Puttahonnamma had sold site No. 1. In another suit by Usha Rani (plaintiff's daughter) OS No. 5611/2011, the decree for injunction was passed against Honnamma in respect of Site No. 1 in the same survey number. RFA No. 951/2012 filed by Honnamma and others challenging the decree of injunction in favour of Usha Rani was also dismissed, confirming that Puttahonnamma had executed valid sale deeds and the defendant's claim of exclusive possession over the acquired property was not established. The claim of the defendant that a partition deed was effected in the year 2006 between Puttahonnamma and her daughters including the defendant herein cannot override the 1991 registered sale deed, as alienated property could not form - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29955 RFA No. 161 of 2024 the part of the partition. The findings of the trial Court are based on legal evidence and supported by relevant documents and are fortified by the final adjudication in prior related litigation. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court is of the view that there are no grounds made out by the appellants to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly this appeal is devoid of merits and this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree of the Trial Court stands confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ckl List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80