- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. C.P. UMASHANKAR S/O LATE C. PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 21, III 'B' CROSS LALBAHADUR NAGAR, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. HARISH P.C S/O LATE C.P. CHANDRASEKARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 3/1, SUBBAIAH REDDY ROAD HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.26329/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the defendant directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022 rendered in O.S.No.26329/2017. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction simplicitor in O.S.No.26329/2017. The plaintiff, tracing his title and possession under a release deed dated 23.11.2017 executed by his mother and his sister, asserts that he is in physical possession of the suit schedule property and further that this property was acquired by way of a confirmation deed dated 10.05.2017. The plaintiff asserted - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 that the property was originally owned by Mr.Papaiah Reddy, the grandfather of the plaintiff, who released the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff also contended that his grandfather Papaiah Reddy instituted a suit in O.S.No.903/2006 seeking cancellation of the release deed dated 15.12.1997. The plaintiff asserted that the suit filed by his grandfather was dismissed. The present suit is filed alleging that the defendant for the past 4 months was trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 4. Upon service of summons, the sole defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement stoutly disputing the plaintiff’s title as well as alleged possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant set up a rival chain of title contending that one Chinna Reddy was the absolute owner of the property, having acquired the same under two registered sale deeds dated 28.02.1949 and 02.06.1949. It was further pleaded that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 upon the demise of Chinna Reddy, his son C. Papaiah Reddy and daughter Smt. Narayanamma succeeded to the estate, and the revenue records were mutated in their names. 5. The defendant further asserted that a family partition was effected on 23.02.2008, and under the said partition, the suit schedule property—described therein as ‘Schedule B’ property—fell to the share of C. Papaiah Reddy. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed that Papaiah Reddy, after having been allotted Schedule B property, executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff’s father. The defendant specifically denied the said claim and contended that the plaintiff has no semblance of right, title, or interest over Schedule B property, which is now described as the suit schedule property. The defendant also disputed the plaintiff’s alleged possession and consequently sought dismissal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 6. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced fourteen documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and relied upon two documents marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. 7. The learned Trial Judge, upon an elaborate appraisal of the pleadings and evidence on record, particularly placing reliance on the judgment rendered in O.S.No.903/2006 (marked at Ex.P.5), and taking into account certain material admissions elicited in the cross- examination of D.W.1 regarding the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property, proceeded to decree the suit for perpetual injunction. The said judgment and decree are called in question in the present appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This Court has also taken note of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 subsequent comprehensive suit instituted by the defendant in O.S.No.3770/2023 in respect of the very same property. In the backdrop of the rival contentions and the material on record, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting perpetual injunction suffer from perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference by this Court? (ii) Whether the institution of the subsequent comprehensive suit by the defendant in O.S.No.3770/2023, in respect of the same property, reinforces the plaintiff’s claim of settled possession and thereby militates against interference with the decree under appeal? (iii) What order? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 Finding on point nos.(i) and (ii): 9. The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction simpliciter, contending that his grandfather, C. Papaiah Reddy, had executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff’s father, whereby the suit schedule property along with certain other properties stood relinquished. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the said release, his father entered into lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and after his demise, the plaintiff and other legal heirs continued in uninterrupted possession. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, having no manner of right, title or interest, attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession, and in view of continuous interference during the four months preceding the institution of the suit, he was constrained to approach the Court seeking protective relief of injunction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 10. To substantiate his claim of lawful and settled possession, the plaintiff placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered in O.S.No.903/2006. The said suit was instituted by none other than C. Papaiah Reddy, the plaintiff’s grandfather, wherein he sought cancellation of the very release deed dated 15.12.1997 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s father. The principal issue framed in the said suit was whether C. Papaiah Reddy had succeeded in proving that the release deed was obtained by fraud and that the document was concocted and not voluntarily executed. The competent Civil Court, upon full- fledged trial, answered the said issue against C. Papaiah Reddy and dismissed the comprehensive suit in its entirety. Consequently, the validity of the release deed dated 15.12.1997 stood judicially upheld, and the challenge mounted by the executant himself was negatived. The said judgment, therefore, lends considerable support to the plaintiff’s assertion that his - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 father derived lawful rights under a valid and subsisting release deed. 11. This Court, while examining the evidence on record, also deems it appropriate to advert to certain material admissions elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1. In paragraph No.6 of the cross-examination, the defendant has candidly admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant has further acknowledged that Chandrashekhar Reddy, the plaintiff’s father, was residing in the suit schedule property along with his family members and that after his demise, his wife and children continued to reside therein. These admissions are neither equivocal nor qualified. They constitute a clear recognition of the plaintiff’s settled possession over the property. 12. The effect of these admissions is twofold. Firstly, they affirm that the plaintiff was in possession as on the date of institution of the suit. Secondly, they - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 demonstrate continuity of possession tracing back to the plaintiff’s father, who had been in physical and lawful occupation pursuant to the release deed. The defendant’s own testimony, therefore, fortifies the plaintiff’s claim of settled and long-standing possession and substantially corroborates the documentary evidence placed on record. In that view of the matter, the admissions extracted in paragraph No.6 of the cross-examination of D.W.1 assume significant evidentiary value and directly support the plaintiff’s entitlement to protective relief. "6. I do not know that on 30.08.2017 the plaintiff had given a complaint against me as per Ex.P13. It is false to suggest that as I was deliberately interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to file the complaint as per Ex.P13. It is false to suggest that the police have warned me not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff as all the relevant documents are standing in the name of the plaintiff. It is true to suggest that I have not produced any documents to show that I am in possession of the Suit Schedule property. It is true to suggest that Chandrashekar Reddy was residing in the Suit Schedule property along with the family members and after his - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 death his wife and children continued to reside in the Suit Schedule property. It is false to suggest that though I am having no right or possession over the Suit Schedule property only in order to harass the plaintiff I am interfering with their possession." 13. In the light of these significant details, which clearly establish the plaintiff's possession as on the date of the filing of the suit, it further stands nailed in view of the filing of the suit by the present defendant in O.S.No.3770/2023. One crucial paragraph in the plaint and the prayer sought in the plaint in O.S.No.3770/2023 would not detain this Court to examine the correctness of the judgment and decree and the conclusions recorded for the Trial Court while decreeing the suit. Therefore, it would be opposite for this Court to extract paragraph No.25 of the plaint followed by the prayer. Both are extracted, which reads as under: "25. The cause of action for the purpose of this suit arose on 25./09/2022 when the defendant forcibly took the possession on the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.26329 of 2017 and on 26/09/2022 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 when the plaintiff lodged the police complaint and other subsequent days within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court."
Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 13.02.2009.
Direct the defendants to handover the possession of the property to the plaintiff.
Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and
To pass such other appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 14. On examining paragraph No.25, the cause of action indicated while instituting a comprehensive suit by the defendant is that he was forcibly dispossessed pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in the present suit bearing O.S.No.26329/2017. On reading prayer (b), the lis regarding possessory rights as on the date of the filing of the suit is also given a quietus by the pleadings in the subsequent suit. At prayer (b), the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 defendant is now seeking possession of the suit schedule property and the cause of action indicated at paragraph No.25, which is extracted supra, also demonstrates that the defendant has pleaded that he was forcibly dispossessed on the strength of the decree granted in O.S.No.26329/2017. 15. In view of these crucial subsequent developments of which this Court has taken cognizance, the injunction granted by the Trial Court is based on evidence coupled with admissions elicited in cross- examination of D.W.1. The fact that now the defendant has filed a comprehensive title suit and is seeking possession, the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.26329/2017 may not warrant any interference. Though the plaintiff's counsel has brought to the notice of this court that the plaint filed in a subsequent suit in O.S.No.3770/2023 is rejected for want of cause of action. However, this Court would make it clear that the defendant's right to pursue the subsequent suit in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10044 RFA No. 271 of 2023 O.S.No.3770/2023 by way of an appeal, this judgment could not come in his way. Since it is a title suit, there shall be no embargo for the plaintiff to pursue the rejection of the plaint in a manner known to law. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the "Negative" and point No.(ii) is answered in the "Affirmative". 16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER The regular first appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK CT: BHK