Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA
Narayanaswamy Since Dead By His Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Ademma, W/O Narayanaswamy – Respondent
This 2025 High Court of Karnataka judgment (decided 20-11-2025) is a recent instance where the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a permanent injunction decree in her favor in a suit for restraining interference with possession of schedule properties. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key facts aligning with a plaintiff-favorable injunction outcome: - Plaintiff claimed ownership and exclusive possession of four items of land, tractor shed, house, well, and vacant site, supported by multiple registered sale deeds (e.g., from 1968 to 1992) and revenue records (pahanies, RTCs, mutation extracts, tax receipts) all standing in her name. (!) (!) (!) - She proved payment of land revenue and taxes, cultivation of trees, bore-well digging, and continuous possession since purchases, with no prior claims by defendants until 2006 interference. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Only one defendant (son) contested, alleging joint family purchase from husband's income; others did not appear. Trial court dismissed suit, but first appellate court reversed, decreeing injunction based on possession proof via revenue documents, without needing title adjudication in a bare injunction suit. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
High Court's reasoning upholding plaintiff’s injunction: - Revenue records created presumption of possession under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, S.133, unrebutted by defendants. (!) (!) - Sale deeds and evidence (PW1-3, Exs.P1-P20) established exclusive possession, sufficient even ignoring additional appellate documents. (!) (!) - Despite family relationship and co-owner defense, no injunction bar applied without declared shares; decree subject to outcome of defendant's pending partition suit (RSA 253/2016). (!) (!) (!) (!) - Trial court erred in dismissing; first appellate court correctly re-appreciated evidence. Second appeal dismissed, confirming injunction. (!) (!) (!)
This reflects principles where plaintiff proves possession via title documents and revenue entries in injunction suits against family claims, prevailing unless co-ownership shares are adjudicated. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
M.G. Uma, J.
The defendants in OS.No.83/2006 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), KGF (hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2009 passed in RA.No.82/2007 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), KGF (hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 20.07.2007 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff -Smt. Adamma, filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 9 seeking permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the schedule. The schedule attached to the plaint describes four items of properties i.e.,:
i. Survey No.61/2 (old survey No.23) measuring 3 acres out of 4 acres situated
A plaintiff can obtain a permanent injunction against defendants interfering with her possession if exclusive ownership is established through revenue records, even amidst claims of co-ownership.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid documentation and unchallenged possession in establishing ownership rights, as well as the requirement for legal challen....
Ownership of property by female Hindus is absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of financing sources, and establishing adverse possession requires clear evidence of host....
The validity of property grants cannot be dismissed solely based on the date of issuance, emphasizing the presumption of truth in revenue records until proven otherwise.
(1) Permanent Injunction – In a suit for permanent injunction, Court is not required to conclusively determine or declare title to property – De jure possession has to be established on the basis of ....
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.
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
