Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
MISS. KAMALA D/O. BALAGOUDA PATIL – Appellant
Versus
KALAVATI D/O. APPANAGOUDA PATIL – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100521 OF 2014 (INJ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. B. S. KAMATE
For the Respondents: SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI
Injunction suits are not maintainable when the defendant categorically denies the plaintiff's title, necessitating a declaration of title instead.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for permanent injunction - Appeal against the First Appellate Court's decision reversing the Trial Court's judgment - Plaintiff claimed ownership based on family partition, while defendants denied the title and sought to establish their claim - The First Appellate Court erred in granting relief when the defendants categorically denied the plaintiff's title, thus the appropriate remedy would be a declaration of title rather than an injunction. (Paras 8, 13, 14)
(B) Legal principles regarding maintainability of injunction suits when title is disputed were discussed, referencing the Supreme Court case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendants obstructing her construction on property claimed through a family partition deed. The defendants contended ownership based on prior family claims and city survey discrepancies.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court's reversal of the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit was unjustified as the plaintiff's claim was disputed, necessitating a title declaration.
Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decision without addressing the defendants' claims of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the suit for injunction was not maintainable due to the defendants’ categorical denial of the plaintiff's title, confirming the Trial Court's dismissal.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ownership of property through family partition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court dismissed the suit based on evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendants deny plaintiff's title, raising significant legal questions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court ruled injunction not maintainable due to title dispute. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. appeal allowed, confirming trial court's decision. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
With the consent of counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present appeal is filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 19.06.2014 passed in Regular Appeal in R.A.No.9/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri at Hukkeri (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the said appeal filed by the plaintiff, set aside the judgement and decree dated 14.12.2012 passed in O.S.No.57/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sankeshwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) and decreed the suit.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff who is respondent herein filed the above suit in O.S.No.57/2007 seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants herein from interfering/causing obstruction in her construction of building over the suit property, which as described in the plaint is measuring 20 feet East-West and 30 feet North- South forming part and parcel of CTS No.2118 totally measuring 338.44 sq. meters situated at Sansuddi Galli, Sankeshwar. Plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner in actual possession of the said property having been allotted as her share in the family partition dated 24.12.1992. That her name was entered into in the property register card based on the said partition. That there was an old house over the suit property which the plaintiff intended to demolish and construct a new house. Accordingly, she obtained permission from TMC, Sankeshwar on 07.03.2007. That the defendants having no manner of right, title and interest over the suit property, had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi seeking to stop the construction by the plaintiff. That the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order of stay which was subsequently vacated and the plaintiff resumed the construction work. The defendants, however, on 26.05.2007 came near the suit property, tried to obstruct the plaintiff from putting up construction of the building constraining her to approach the court by filing the present suit.
4. Defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments and also the description of the suit property. Alleging suppression of the true and material facts by the Plaintiff, it is contended that one Laxmangouda was the propositus of the family of the plaintiff and defendants, who had 3 sons by name Bhimagouda, Satigouda and Bharamagouda. Satigouda was adopted by one Honagouda. The said satigouda had no issues and he adopted Shidagouda son of his brother Bhimagouda. That after the adoption of Shidagouda, he was renamed as Balagouda. Defendants are the daughters of said Balagouda. Third son of Laxmangouda namely Bhamagouda had 3 sons by name Shankargouda, Appanagouda and Satigouda. Plaintiff Kalavati is the daughter of Appanagouda. Honagouda the adoptive father of Satigouda was the absolute owner in actual possession of open space bearing VPC Nos. 1526A, 1526B and 1672. That after the death of Honagouda, the name of his adopted son Satigouda was entered in respect of the said properties. VPC numbers of the said property were changed and subsequently new numbers were assigned. Old VPC No.1526A was assigned new VPC No.1803, old VPC No.1526B was assigned with new VPC No.1804 and old VPC No.1672 was assigned with new VPC No.1963. The said house properties are open space belonging to the family of Honagouda. The said properties belong to the adoptive family of satigouda, where
