- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.969 OF 2010 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUBBAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WIFE OF CHANDRAPPA, 2. SRI N. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANAPPA, BOTH R/AT GURAPPANA MUTT, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562135, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.S. SHASHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SUBRAMANYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF THAMMANNA, RESIDING AT GURAPPANA MUTT, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK–562135, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI/SMT. S. DAYAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.80/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT, DEVANAHALLI REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 29.08.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.38/1991 BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL THROUGH OUT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THIS RSA COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Court on 18.07.2016 framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is perverse in misreading the Commissioner's report, while opining contrary to the findings of the trial Court with regard to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?” 2. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent have been heard on the substantial question of law framed by this Court. 3. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.80/2006, whereby the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 judgment of dismissal passed in O.S.No.38/1991 by the Trial Court came to be reversed and the suit for permanent injunction was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Brief facts: 4. The suit is one for permanent injunction in respect of 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.79/3 out of total extent of about 1 acre 22 guntas. According to the plaintiffs, the property originally belonged to Hanumanthrayappa, who had two children, Thammanna and Thangamma. Thammanna's wife is Gowramma, who is plaintiff No.1 and his son is Subramanyappa, who is plaintiff No.2. Thangamma's daughter is Muni Akkayyamma. Thammanna retained 8 guntas and conveyed the remaining extent to Muni Akkayyamma under reconveyance dated 07.05.1975. The plaintiffs claim possession over the retained portion. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 5. The defendants contended that the entire property devolved through Thangamma and Muni Akkayyamma and as per Ex.D1 dated 01.03.1979, Muni Akkayyamma sold the property to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and further by a rectification deed dated 06.01.1993, clarifies the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. The defendants claim continuous possession of the entire extent including the suit property. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that: i. The First Appellate Court has misread the Commissioner's report. ii. The electric meter and the pump house stands in the name of Muni Akkayyamma supporting defendants' possession. iii. It is submitted that the Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral evidence of PW1, CW1 and documentary evidence Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 Commissioner’s report, has rightly held that the plaintiffs were not in possession. iv. The First Appellant Court erroneously relied upon Ex.P6 and ExP7 instead of examining actual possession and that the substantial question of law framed by this Court needs to be answered in favour of the appellants. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that: i. By way of Ex.P6, Muni Akkayyamma had sold 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.79/3 to Thammanna, the husband of plaintiff No.1. ii. By way of reconveyance under Ex.P7, the said Thammanna sold only 1 acre 14 guntas to Muni Akkayyamma and retained 8 guntas as is evident from the recitals in Ex.P7. iii. It is contended that the title for 8 guntas flows in favour of the plaintiffs and the possession follows title. It is submitted that Ex.D1 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 Ex.D2 cannot confirm a right in favour of Muni Akkayyamma to sell 1 acre 20 guntas when admittedly under Ex.P7 the said Thammanna had only sold 1 acre 14 guntas. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 9. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish actual possession over the suit property and that the Commissioner's report indicated defendants’ possession including usage of well and pump. The Trial Court also observed that the revenue and title documents were insufficient without proof of possession and accordingly, the suit for injunction was dismissed. The First Appellate Court, being the last finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material on record and reversed the judgment holding that the title documents Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, support the plaintiffs’ case and consequently, the possession was inferred in favour of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 the plaintiffs and the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction. 10. At the outset, it is to be noted that the suit is one for bare injunction, wherein the primary requirement is proof of lawful possession as on the date of the suit. Title though relevant cannot substitute proof of actual possession. The plaintiffs have relied upon Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 to contend that though larger extent in Sy.No.79/3 was dealt with, an extent of 8 guntas was retained, over which they claim possession. Ex.P7 read in conjunction with Ex.P6, indicates the flow of title and the manner in which the property was dealt with between the parties. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire material on record has accepted the same. 11. The contention of the defendants is that Ex.D1 dated 01.03.1979 evidences transfer of the entire property in their favour and the possession stood delivered thereunder. However, the extent conveyed under Ex.D1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 coupled with the necessity for rectification under Ex.D2, and the absence of clear identification of the entire extent on ground, creates ambiguity as to whether the entire property including the 8 guntas stood conveyed and possessed by the defendants. A careful consideration of the documentary evidence Ex.P6 Muni Akkayyamma conveyed Sy.No.79/3 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas in favour of Thammanna, the husband of plaintiff No.1. This forms the root of title in plaintiffs’ branch, thereafter, Ex.P7 dated 07.05.1975 clearly discloses that Thammanna inturn reconveyed 1 acre 14 guntas to Muni Akkayyamma expressly retaining 8 guntas. The recitals in Ex.P7 is extracted below: “Rs.250 S.No.8 D. 2/5/1975 ²æêÀÄw UËgÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀjUÉ 5-00 PÁUÀzÀPÁÌV 2.50 + 2.50 dAnPÉÆnÖzÉ C. Ramaiah. C. Ramiah Stamp Vendor Vijayapura, Devanahalli Talu D.2/5/1975 Rs. 2.50 S.No.9 D.2/5/1975 8 PÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ C. Ramaiah. C. Ramaih Stamp Vendor Vijayapura Devanahalli Taluk Dt. 2/5/1975 Certified that a deficit stamp duty of Rs.135/- Rupees One Hundred Thirty Five only has been paid vide Challen Nos. 12/8/5/75 Rs. 57.50 No. 24/9/5/75 for Rs.70/- paid at S.B.M. Devanahalli Mohamed Zafrulla Khan S.R. 9/5/75 This - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 Document consists of Two sheets first sheet of Document No. 317 of 75-76 MZKSR (Seal) ¸À£Àð ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ J¥ÀàvÉÛ'ÊzÀ£Éà E¹é ªÉÄà wAUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁjÃRÄ K¼ÀgÀ®Äè zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ mË£Àß°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÆÃqÉãÀºÀ½î vÀAUÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ªÀÄĤ CPÀÌAiÀÄåªÀÄä£ÀªÀjUÉ EzÉà «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ mË£À£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÆÃqÉãÀºÀ½î ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ¯ÉÃmï vÀªÀÄätÚ£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw UËgÀªÀÄä £Á£ÀÄ §gɹPÉÆlÖ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀæªÀÄ K£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ J¥ÀàvÀÛ£Éà E¹é ªÉÄà vÁjÃRÄ E¥ÀàvÉÛüÀgÀ°è ¨ÉÆÃqÉãÀºÀ½î vÀAUÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ªÀÄĤ CPÀÌAiÀÄåªÀÄä£ÁzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¨ÉÆÃqÉãÀºÀ½î ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ¯ÉÃmï vÀªÀÄätÚ£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀæªÀĪÁV ¸ÀzÀj PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸À¨ï jfµÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀ D¦sù£À°è 1£Éà §ÄQÌ£À°è 1054 £Éà £ÀA§gÁV (ºÉ) F JqÀUÉÊ ºÉ¨ÉânÖ£À UÀÄvÀÄð ¨ÉÆÃqÉãÀºÀ½î ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ vÀªÀÄätÚ£À ºÉAqÀw UËgÀªÀÄä ºÁQzÀPÉÌ ©PÀÌ®AzÁgÀgÀ §gÀºÀ jf¸ÀÖgÁVzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ PÀ¸À¨Á UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀgÉé J¥ÀàvÉÆÛAzÀ£Éà ¸À¨ï ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà £ÀA§gï RÄ¶Ì MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ EgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝgÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ¢ü ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ªÀÄoÀ PÀlÖ®Ä JAlÄUÀÄAmÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G½¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ ºÀ¢£Á®ÄÌ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäUÉ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢ ¥ÀÆgÀéPÉÌ ¸Àä±Á£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±Áå£ÀĨÉÆÃUÀ £ÀAdÄAqÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ AiÀĮĪÀºÀ½îUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ zÀQëtPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀŽ¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ JAlÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §Ar zÁj F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ EzÉà «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ PÀ¸À¨Á UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀgÉé J¥ÀàvÀÄÛ£Á®Ì£Éà £ÀA§gï RÄ¶Ì LzÀÄ JPÀgÉ ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀÄ UÀÄAmÉUÉ ªÀA¨sÀvÀÄÛ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä PÀAzÁAiÀÄ vÉgÀvÀPÀÌ d«Ää£À°è ¥ÀÆgÀézÀ (ºÉ) F JqÀUÉÊ ºÉ¨ÉânÖ£À ºÉAqÀw - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 UËgÀªÀÄä ºÁQzÀÝPÉÌ MPÀÌ®A §gÀºÀ II Sheet of Doct. No. 317 Book I MZKSR (SEAL) PÀqÉ EgÀĪÀ CgÀªÁ¹ JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀgÉUÀÄAmÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢ ¥ÀÆgÀézÀ PÀqÉUÉ C§ÆèqÀÄ ²Ã£À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J.«. aPÀÌ C¥ÀàAiÀÄåtÚ£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ wªÀÄä¸ÀAzÀæzÀ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÆtÚªÀÄä £ÀªÀgÀ ¨ÉÊgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ zÁj F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ CªÀiÁ¤PÀgÉ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀgÉé MAzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ CgÀªÀvÉÆÛÃA¨sÀvÀÛ£Éà ¸À¨ï ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà £ÀA§gï vÀj «¹ÛÃtð E¥ÀvÉÆÛA§vÀÄÛ UÀÄAmÉUÉ DPÁgÀ DgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä vÉgÀvÀPÀÌ d«ÄäUÉ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ ¥ÀÆgÀéPÉÌ ªÉÄt¸ÀÄ §¸À¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¥Á¥ÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¨Á« §ZÀÑ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ ¸ÉÆtÚªÀÄä £ÀªÀgÀ £ÀAd¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀħâtÚ£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ dÄ®ä ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÆß F ¢£À ¤ªÀÄUÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÀB ¥ÀÆgÀéPÀªÁV UËgÀߪÉÄAlÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ¤µÀ̵Éð ªÀiÁr PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÉƧ®UÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÁ F PɼÀUÉ ¸ÁQë ºÁQgÀĪÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀUÀzÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄà (ºÉ) F JqÀUÉÊ ºÉ¨É'ÊnÖ£À UÀÄvÀÄð ¨ÉÆÃqÉãÀºÀ½î ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ vÀªÀÄätÚ£À ºÉAqÀw UËgÀªÀÄä ºÁQzÀPÉÌ ©PÀÌ®A §gÀºÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ LlA ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÉà ¤ªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” Emphasis supplied 12. The said recitals, as stated supra, are categorical and unambiguous as to the extent reconveyed and the specific retention of 8 guntas by Thammanna. Thus, from Ex.P7 the position that emerges is Muni Akkayyamma held only 1 acre 14 guntas and remaining 8 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 guntas stood retained by Thammanna, the husband of plaintiff No.1. 13. In this backdrop, the reliance placed by the defendants on Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 does not advance their case. Even assuming Ex.D1 evidences is that the sale by Muni Akkayyamma in favour of defendants, she could convey only the extent that remained with her i.e., 1 acre 14 guntas, and not entire 1 acre 20 guntas. The subsequent rectification deed Ex.D2 enlarging or clarifying the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas, cannot in law, convey a larger extent than what the vendor possessed. It is trite that a vendor cannot pass a better title than what she has. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that Ex.D1 read with Ex.D2, they have acquired the entire extent including the 8 guntas is legally unsustainable. 14. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence has rightly taken note of the clear title in Ex.P7 regarding retention of 8 guntas and has held that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 the plaintiffs have established their possession over the said portion. The alleged discrepancies pointed out by the appellants with reference to the Commissioner's report or ancillary circumstances do not dislodge the documentary foundation laid by Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. The Trial Court, while dismissing the suit, has not properly appreciated the legal effect of Ex.P7 and has failed to consider that once retention of 8 guntas is established, the burden shifts on the defendants to prove that to show lawful possession over specific extent which they have failed to discharge. 15. In a suit for injunction, when the plaintiffs establish a better right coupled with evidence of retention and continuity and when the defendants’ title itself does not extend to the suit property, the finding of possession recorded by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse. In view of the above, the First Appellate Court has not misread the evidence and has correctly appreciated Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. The findings are supported by material on record and do not suffer from any - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21201 RSA No. 969 of 2010 perversity. The defendants’ reliance on Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 does not come to the aid of the defendants. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent, and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 passed in R.A.No.80/2006 on the file of Fast Track Court, Devanahalli stands confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57