Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Nanjunda Jetty, S/o Sri Nanjudnappa Jetty Since Dead By Lr's – Appellant
Versus
Hanumantha Jetty Sincd Dead By Lr"S – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2010 (INJ)
Decided On : 11-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of ownership and possession of suit property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defense claims regarding permissive possession and title. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. issues raised for court determination based on pleadings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. evidentiary analysis and findings regarding possession. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. observations regarding future rights and dismissal of appeal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. final judgment and order on the appeal. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
The legal representatives of unsuccessful plaintiff are the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.4810/1989 by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
i) In respect of immovable property bearing No.8, more fully described as hereunder (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'), a suit came to be filed for relief of permanent injunction at first instance.
SCHEDULE
Vacant site space measuring East to West 70 feet, North to South 48 feet forming part of property No.8 of Mathikere, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru - 54, bounded on the:
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East | Road |
| West | Shamanna's property |
| North | Plaintiff's residential house |
| South | Road |
(A) Portion forming part of plaint Schedule Property on which the second defendant was raised construction to the property bearing a portion of Khatha No.8, situated at 3rd Cross, Mathikere, Bengaluru, with asbestos sheet measuring East to West 20 feet, North to South 22-1/2 feet and bounded on the:
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East | Road |
| West | Plaintiff's property in which the 1st Defendant has raised the construction |
| North | Remaining portion of khatha No.8 in possession of the plaintiffs. |
| South | Remaining portion of khatha No.8 in possession of the plaintiffs. |
(B) Portion forming part of plaint Schedule Property on which the First defendant was raised construction to the property bearing a portion of Khatha No.8, situated at 3rd Cross, Mathikere, Bengaluru, with R.C.C. roofed house measuring East to West 30-3/4 feet, North to South 23-1/4 feet and bounded on the:
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East | Plaintiff's property in which the 1st Defendant has raised the construction |
| West | Remaining portion of khatha No.8 in possession of the plaintiffs |
| North | Remaining portion of khatha No.8 in possession of the plaintiffs |
| South | Remaining portion of khatha No.8 in possession of the plaintiffs |
ii) It is claimed that the suit property belonged to the appellants' maternal grandfather namely Gunda Jetty alias Appajappa. After the death of Gunda Jetty, mother of the appellants' namely, Seethamma alias Savithramma got the property by way of succession. Suit property got included in the corporation limits and thereafter, corporation authorities holding necessary enquiry, mutated the name of Savithramma in their records and khatha certificate was issued. Savithramma started paying taxes after the property was assessed by the corporation authorities. Savithramma said to have died on 21.07.1989 and prior to that she had executed a Will on 21.05.1989 in respect of properties possessed by her including the suit property.
iii) Based on the bequeath, the appellant and his brother Muniya Jetty succeeded to the property and thereafter, they were in continuous possession of the suit property, which also forms a front-yard.
iv) It is further contended in the plaint, defendants without there being any right, title or interest, attempted to trespass on the suit property on 28.08.1989 and tried to damage the suit property. As such, initially suit was filed with a prayer for permanent injunction. According to the plaintiffs, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants encroached upon the suit property and raised construction. Therefore, plaintiffs sought for relief of demolition of the construction made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the suit property by amending the plaint for prayer for mandatory injunction.
v) Pursu
In property disputes, proof of ownership and lawful possession must be established; mere claims without supporting evidence lead to dismissal of injunction requests.
A plaintiff must prove ownership and possession to succeed in claims for permanent and mandatory injunctions, which was not established in this case.
Ownership must be established through substantial evidence; mere possession and prior admissions are insufficient to prove title in property disputes.
A plaintiff must demonstrate lawful possession and accurate property boundaries to succeed in a suit for permanent injunction, particularly when challenged by a defendant claiming prior possession.
A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence.
A suit for permanent injunction requires proof of possession; if title is disputed, a declaratory suit is necessary, and failure to include necessary parties renders the suit untenable.
Documentary evidence prevails over oral claims in property disputes; adverse possession must be substantiated by valid evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for permanent injunction may not be legally sustainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, especially when the plainti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
