- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 947 OF 2010 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SURESH .S.V S/O LATE S. VEERAPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.1012, I CROSS I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.G. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S.V. UMA MAJOR W/O LATE VENKATA REDDY 2. SRI. V. VINAY MAJOR S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 10/12 I CROSS, I BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIN .V.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RFA IS FILED U/O XLI, R-1, R/W S-96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S.1427/05 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV-ADDL. CITY Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff, who has challenged the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No. 1427/2005. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as follows: The plaintiff instituted the present suit for injunction simpliciter, asserting his lawful and exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. The foundation of the claim is a registered Release Deed, stated to have been executed by defendant No.1 and her brother, S.V. Shivaram, in favour of the plaintiff - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 through their General Power of Attorney holder, J. Ashwathnarayan, under a registered Power of Attorney dated 04.10.2004. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said GPA holder was duly authorized to execute, present, and complete the release transaction. On the strength of the said release deed, the plaintiff contended that the defendants stood divested of all their rights, title, and interest in the suit schedule property and that possession was also delivered in his favour. On these premises, the plaintiff asserted that he was in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the institution of the suit. 4. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 19.02.2005 at about 10.00 p.m., he received information that the defendants, along with their henchmen, had trespassed upon the suit schedule property and made an attempt to break open the lock of the premises which was in his occupation. It was alleged that the defendants, by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 resorting to high-handed acts, attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, thereby giving rise to a cause of action for the present suit. 5. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement stoutly denying the plaint averments in toto. While specifically disputing the execution and validity of the release deed relied upon by the plaintiff, the defendants asserted title over the suit schedule property on the basis of a Will dated 11.02.1984, alleged to have been executed by their father in favour of defendant No.1 and her brother, Shivaram. It was further contended that the plaintiff, in collusion with the said Shivaram, had fabricated and created a fraudulent release deed without the knowledge or consent of defendant No.1, with the sole intention of usurping the valuable property. The defendants also asserted that they were in actual and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 physical possession of the suit schedule property and, therefore, sought dismissal of the suit. 6. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Though the defendants sought to place rebuttal evidence on record and defendant No.2 tendered himself for chief- examination, he failed to present himself for cross- examination. The Trial Court, therefore, discarded the evidence of the defendants. However, while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court proceeded to examine the merits of the case and ultimately held that, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s assertion of title under the release deed, he had failed to establish his physical possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. The Trial Court further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendants. Consequently, Issue - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 Nos.2 and 3 were answered in the negative and the suit came to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and has carefully perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the judgment and decree under challenge. 8. In the light of the rival contentions urged and the material placed on record, the following points arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit suffer from perversity? (ii) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove lawful possession as on the date of the suit and the alleged interference is perverse or unsustainable in law? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 (iii) What order?" Finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii): 9. In order to substantiate his claim of title and lawful possession as on the date of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff has primarily relied upon the registered Release Deed marked as Ex.P1. A perusal of Ex.P1 indicates that the plaintiff claims to have derived title under the said document, alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 and her brother, Shivaram. However, except placing reliance on the said release deed, the plaintiff has not produced any independent documentary evidence to demonstrate that possession of the suit schedule property was in fact delivered to him pursuant to the release deed or that he was in actual physical possession as on the date of the filing of the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 10. On the contrary, the documents brought on record through the defendants, more particularly Exs.D1 to D9, comprising invitation cards, cash bills, electricity bills, receipts and telegrams, along with photographs marked as Exs.D13 to D22, prima facie indicate that defendant No.1 and her son continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property even subsequent to the execution of the release deed relied upon by the plaintiff. Though defendant No.2 failed to subject himself to cross-examination and consequently his evidence was discarded, the said circumstance by itself does not absolve the plaintiff of discharging the initial and substantive burden cast upon him to establish his possession. Significantly, apart from Ex.P1, the plaintiff has not produced a single contemporaneous document such as tax paid receipts, electricity bills, municipal records, or any other material to evidence his actual possession pursuant to the alleged release. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 11. It is a settled principle of law that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the entire burden squarely rests upon the plaintiff to establish his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit, coupled with proof of interference by the defendant. Mere production of a title document, without proof of possession, is insufficient to sustain a decree for injunction. While it is true that the rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendants is liable to be viewed with circumspection, particularly in light of defendant No.2 not offering himself for cross-examination, the Court is nonetheless required to examine whether the plaintiff has independently discharged the burden placed upon him. 12. On a careful scrutiny of the material on record, it emerges that except the release deed, the plaintiff has failed to place any credible evidence demonstrating possession. The revenue and property - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 records also do not reflect the plaintiff’s name pursuant to the alleged release deed. On the contrary, the entries continue to stand in the name of the plaintiff’s father and defendant No.1’s father, thereby casting a serious doubt on the plaintiff’s assertion of exclusive possession. These crucial aspects have been meticulously considered and appreciated by the Trial Court while dismissing the suit. 13. Though the present suit is a bare suit for injunction founded on a registered release deed, having regard to the close family relationship between the parties and the absence of convincing evidence of delivery of possession, the plaintiff’s claim of being in lawful possession as on the date of institution of the suit remains unsubstantiated and doubtful. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Accordingly, Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the negative. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2813 RFA No. 947 of 2010 Finding on Point No.(iii): 14. In view of findings recorded on point Nos. (i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41