- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1738 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHREYAS R REDDY, S/O. MR. P N RAJAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. MRS. SNEHA R REDDY, D/O. MR. P N RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI DIWAKAR,ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. M K CHAYA, W/O. LR JAYARAMA REDDY, R/AT NO. 363, 4TH MAIN, 4TH AVENUE, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BENGLAURU - 560034. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI J M RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.2285/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE JUDGMENT The defendants are in appeal challenging the decree for injunction dated 09.03.2018 in O.S.No.2285/2016 on the file of LVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendants based on registered sale deed dated 18.08.2006. The plaintiff traces possession based on the title over the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds dated 14.02.2005 and 21.10.2004 and gift deed dated 13.02.2004. 3. The plaintiff contends that originally the property belonged to P.K.Narayana Reddy and he had gifted the property to his son P.N.Rajamurthy and P.N.Rajamurthy in turn has sold the property to P.M.Krishna Reddy. Said P.M. Krishna Reddy sold the property to N.Chandrika, who is none other than daughter of P.K.Narayana Reddy and N.Chandrika sold the property to the plaintiff. 4. The defendants disputed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants who are children of P.N.Rajamurthy claim that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 property in the hands of their grandfather K.Narayana Reddy is the ancestral property and he had no right to gift the property to one of his sons (father of defendants) without the consent of other family members. 5. The plaintiff was examined. The plaintiff has produced all the title deeds referred to above and also the records pertaining to the suit schedule property including the encumbrance certificates. The plaintiff is not cross-examined. 6. Sufficient opportunity was given to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff. That was not availed. Then the case was posted for defendants' evidence. The defendants did not lead evidence to substantiate their claim based on the documents placed on record, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants would urge that the property was the ancestral property of P.K.Narayana Reddy and he could not have executed a gift deed in favour of his son P.N.Rajamurthy without consent of other sharers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 8. In addition, it is also urged that the suit has been hurriedly decreed without affording sufficient opportunity to the defendants to contest the matter and the matter be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would urge that, the suit of the plaintiff is rightly decreed and there is no contest to the evidence led by the plaintiff. 10. The defendants have not produced any records to show that the property in the hands of P.K.Narayana Reddy was inherited from his ancestor. 11. In case, the property was self acquired property of P.K.Narayana Reddy’s father, then again that would be the property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by the children of propositus, and P.K.Narayana Reddy and his siblings would succeed to the same. Then, after the partition among the siblings of P.K.Narayana Reddy, the property in the hands of each sharer will not be a coparcenary property. In such situation, it would be the self-acquired property of the sharer. P.K.Narayana Reddy who is allotted the share in the partition was competent to execute a gift deed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 favour of any person, as such, the gift deed in favour of his elder son P.N.Rajamurthy is valid is the submission. 12. In addition, it is also urged that despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the plaintiff is not cross examined, and the defendants have not led evidence and apart from that the defendants have also filed a suit for declaration challenging the aforementioned gift deed in the name of P.N.Rajamurthy and said suit in O.S.No.1773/2016 is dismissed for non- prosecution on 09.03.2018 and no application is filed for restoration of the suit. 13. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 14. The following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the judgment and decree by holding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. (b) Whether the appellants have made out a case for remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 15. The Court has perused the issues framed in the aforementioned suit in O.S.No.2285/2016. The issues read as under: "1) Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged interference caused by the defendants? 3) Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of proper parties? 4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of payment of court fee? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief of permanent injunction sought for? 6) What order or decree?" 16. From the aforementioned issues and also from the discussion in the judgment, it is quite evident that the Court has not gone into the question of title and it has only considered the possession of the plaintiff over the property. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is in possession of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 the property as the documents in unmistakable terms would disclose the plaintiff’s possession. 17. As far as the contention that, the matter requires to be remanded is concerned, it is to be noticed that the sufficient opportunity is given to the defendants to cross examine the plaintiff and to lead their own evidence. The opportunity is not availed. 18. And in addition to that, it is also noticed that the defendants have filed a suit in case O.S.No.1773/2016 and same is said to have been dismissed on 09.03.2017 and admittedly no application is filed for restoration of the said suit and no fresh suit is filed challenging the aforementioned gift deed in favour of P.N.Rajamurthy. 19. This being the position, the Court also does not find any reason to remand the matter to the Trial Court for giving an opportunity to the defendants to contest the matter afresh. 20. Since the suit is only for injunction, the Court has not gone into the question of title of the plaintiff over the property, the decree for injunction is confirmed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10586 RFA No. 1738 of 2018 21. In case, the appellants claim that they have title over the property or any portion of it, and if any remedy is available in law, it is for the appellants to avail such remedy. 22. Accordingly, the appeal dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38