Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2025:KHC:40916

RFA No. 1243 of 2003

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1243 OF 2003 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.NAVANEETHAMMA
W/O. LATE THIPPAIAH
AGED 85 YEARS

2. T NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE THIPPAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

2(a) SMT.GOWRAMMA
WIFE OF LATE T.NARAYANAPPA
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

2(b) SRI N.SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O LATE T.NARAYANAPPA
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

2(c) SRI N.NAGARAJ
S/O LATE T.NARAYANAPPA
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2(d) SRI N.JAGADISHA
S/O LATE T.NARAYANAPPA
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

2(e) SMT.N.VIJAYA
D/O LATE T.NARAYANAPPA
W/O SRI N.NARAYANASWAMY
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
R.V.COLLEGE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BANDE BOMMASANDRA
DODDAGUBBI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK, PIN:562 149

3. T KRISHNAPPA
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE THIPPAIAH

4. T NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LATE THIPPAIAH

RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE
RESIDING AT
MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-59

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI S GANGADHAR AITHAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NARAYANAPPA
S/O. CHIKKA VENKATARAMANAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

1(a) SRI HANUMAPPA
S/O LATE C.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 059

1(b) SRI RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE C.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT R.V.LAYOUT
MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
R.V.COLLEGE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 059

1(c) SRI RAMESHA
S/O LATE C.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT BALAJI LAYOUT
MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 059

1(d) SMT.AMMAYAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT GAVIPURA
K.GALAHALLI POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 060

1(e) SRI NAGARAJA
S/O LATE C.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT R.V.COLLEGE POST
BEML 7TH STAGE
MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE- 560 059

…RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI G.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a to e)]

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI S GANGADHAR AITHAL
For the Respondents: SRI G.NATARAJ

Ownership claims must rely on substantive evidence, as documentary title prevails over mere revenue entries in property disputes.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Suit for permanent injunction regarding property ownership - Appeal by defendants against trial court's decree, alleging insufficient consideration of title deeds versus revenue documents - Defendants provided evidence of ownership through sale deeds, while plaintiff relied on revenue documents alone without contesting prior judgment - Legal principle established that documentary evidence of title takes precedence over revenue entries. (Paras 36-48)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought an injunction asserting ownership and possession of a property disputed by defendants’ claims of ownership based on formal sale deeds. The trial court's initial decree favored the plaintiff, but subsequent evidence from the defendants necessitated re-evaluation. (Paras 4-10)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate lawful possession and that the decree was issued against a conflicting prior judgment, constituting legal infirmity. (Paras 41-64)

Issues: Key issues included whether the plaintiff established lawful possession and the effect of a previous judgment which contradicted the current claims. (Paras 40, 56)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's reliance on revenue documents was inadequate against the defendants’ documentary evidence proving ownership and prior conflicting judgment. An injunction cannot be granted when lawful possession is unproven. (Paras 49-63)

Result: Appeal allowed, trial court's decree set aside; plaintiff's right to establish title in future proceedings affirmed. (Paras 65)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.8.03 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5284/93 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, CCH NO.13, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri S.Gangadhar Aithal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.Nataraj, learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, i.e., respondent Nos.1(a) to (e).

2. Defendants are in appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5284/1993 in respect of the following immovable properties, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.

“The vacant site forming part of House list No.33 bearing katha and assessment No.35 of Mylasandra, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and the entire property assessed at Rs.20.70 paise and bounded as under:

East by: Vacant site earlier owned by Ramaiah, Son of Pillaiah and now purchased by defendant No.2 Sri T.Narayanappa,

West by: Vacant sites of Ramaiah, Son of Sri Pillaiah and now owned by the 2nd defendant Sri T.Narayanappa,

North by: Vacant site belonging to Sri Ganesh Pillai now purchased by II defendant Sri T.Narayanappa,

South by: The residential house of the plaintiff.

Measuring East to West 29 feet and North to South 29 feet, with manure and pit on its eastern side measuring about 14 x 14 feet with a depth of about six feet.”

3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for bare injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the vacant site forming part of house list No.33 bearing katha and assessment No.35 of Mylasandra village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West 29 feet and North to South 29 feet with boundaries as mentioned above.

5. It is further contended that the suit schedule property also has got a house situated on the southern side of the suit property in which plaintiff is residing with family members without interruption from anybody.

6. Defendants are the owners of the property on three sides of the suit property on the east, west and north.

7. It is further contended that the sale deed dated 05.09.1955 was executed by Hanumaiah, S/o late Muddaiah (youngest uncle of the plaintiff) in favour of one Ramaiah, S/o Pillaiah consisting of two items situated on the eastern and western side of the suit property. The southern boundary of the suit property and southern boundary of two items of the above suit property purchased by the family of the defendants from Ramaiah referred to in the sale deed dated 05.09.1955 having common boundary for the property of Ganesh Pillai situated on further southern side of the suit property extending East to West 116 feet.

8. Plaintiff is tethering cattle and also dumping the cowdung and other waste in the manure pit in the suit schedule property and same has been put to use since the time of ancestors of the plaintiff.

9. It is further contention of the plaintiff that defendants on or about 12.08.1993 and subsequently, tried to trespass into the suit schedule property. Same was duly resisted by the plaintiff. Plaintiff gave a complaint to Kengeri Police in this regard. Thereafter, plaintiff learnt that the defendants were trying to obtain licence from the Pattanagere Group Panchayat to put up construction in the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff under different house list No.45 and katha No.43 of Mylasandra village.

10. Thus, plaintiff filed a complaint with Pattanagere Group Panchayath on 16.08.1993 requesting them not to grant licence to the defendants to construct the house. But, there was no response either from the police or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39240

Ownership claims must rely on substantive evidence, as documentary title prevails over mere revenue entries in property disputes.

Cases Referred (2)