SRI. P MURUGAN vs SRI. H NAGARAJ - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9702

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2018 IN RFA No. 501/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P. MURUGAN S/O LATE SRI. PONNU SWAMY MUDALIAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S, 1(a) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE SRI. P.MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT OLD NOU-22, NEW NO.12, 5^TH CROSS, OLD OKALI PURAM, BANGALORE-21.
2. M.RAGHUNATHAN S/O MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. P.UMAPATHY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. PONNU SWAMY MUDALIAR, 4. SRI. P.SANTHI, W/O SRI. P.UMAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1(a), 2, 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT OLD NO.U-22, NEW NO.12, 5^TH CROSS, OLD OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021.
…APPELLANTS (BY SMT. R.V.NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H.NAGARAJ S/O LATE SRI. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.3, 6^TH CROSS, 40 FEET ROAD, MANJUNATHNAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560 010.
2. SMT. KUPPAMMA.G.
W/O LATE SRI. GOVINDARAJ.P., D/O LATE SRI. PONNU SWAMY MUDALIAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S, a) SRI. GOVINDARAJ.P., S/O LATE SRI. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, b)
SRI. KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. GOVINDARAJ.P., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2(a) AND 2(b) ARE R/O NO.30/13, VIJAYARANGAN STREET, SAIDHAPETTAI, ARANI POST, ARNI, TIRUVANNAMALAI, TAMIL NADU-632 301.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
V/O/DTD: 15.11.2023, APPELLANT NO.1 IS TREATED AS LR OF R2;
V/O/DTD:18.07.2023, R2(A & B) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S NO.7372/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO. 1229/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P.MURUGAN S/O LATE SRI.PONNUSWAMY MUDALIAR, SINCE DEAD BY LR’S, 1a) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE SRI.P.MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, NEW NO.12, 15^TH CROSS, OLD OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021.
2. SRI. M.RAGHUNATHAN, S/O SRI. P.MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 3. SRI. P.UMAPATHY S/O LATE SRI.PONNUSWAMY MUDALIAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 4. SMT. SANTHI W/O SRI. UMAPATHY.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O OLD NO.V.22, NEW NO.12, 5^TH CROSS, OLD OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R.V.NAIK, ADVOCATE )
AND:
SRI. H.NAGARAJ S/O LATE SRI.B.N.HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO.3, 6^TH CROSS, 40 FT. ROAD, MAJUNATHANAGARA, 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 010.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE (V/O/DTD: 07.08.2024)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 16.2.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.7371/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.27), BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.11.2025, THIS DAY, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH &
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Preface: ............................................................... 5

II. Brief Facts: .......................................................... 6

III. Impugned Judgment: .......................................... 14

IV. Contentions of the Appellants/Defendants: ............. 15

V. Contentions of Respondent No.1/Plaintiff: .............. 20

VI. Issues for Consideration: ..................................... 22

VII. Analysis and Findings: ......................................... 23

VIII.Conclusion: ........................................................ 44

I. Preface:

1. These appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Decree dated 16-02-2016 passed by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.7372/2010 and O.S.No.7371/2011, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.7372/2010 for declaration of title, possession and cancellation of Gift Deeds was decreed against the appellants/defendants and the suit filed by the appellants in O.S.No.7371/2010 seeking declaration of title by adverse possession against the respondent No.1/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.7372/2010.

II. Brief Facts:

3. The brief facts are that the respondent No.1, as plaintiff in O.S.No.7372/2010 and as defendant in O.S.No.7371/2011, contended that late Sri. B.N.Hanumaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, bearing Old No.U-22, New No.12, 5^th Cross, Old Okalipuram, Bengaluru, [hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property”] having purchased it from Mrs. B. Peacock under a registered Sale Deed dated 13.12.1958. The respondent No.1/plaintiff asserted that late Sri. B.N.Hanumaiah had been in continuous possession of the suit schedule property and had effected khata in his name and regularly paid all property taxes and statutory dues in respect thereof.

4. The respondent No.1/plaintiff referred to earlier litigations between the parties contending that in execution proceedings arising out of O.S.No.486/1973, the suit property was attached. However, thereafter, O.S. No.1019/1973 was filed by Smt. Muttamma, the appellants/defendants’ mother asserting ownership of the suit schedule property and specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 21.01.1973 which was dismissed, and the attachment of the suit property was upheld. Thereafter, O.S.No.7123/1980 filed by her for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit property was dismissed. A subsequent suit being O.S.No.1010/1993 seeking declaration of title by adverse possession was also dismissed. It is contended that, in all earlier proceedings, the claims of ownership and adverse possession set up by the appellants/defendants’ family were consistently rejected.

4.1. The respondent No.1/plaintiff further submitted that, after the death of late Sri. B.N.Hanumaiah, the other legal heirs executed a registered Release Deed dated 17.04.2010 in his favour, thereby vesting the title of the suit schedule property with him.

5. The appellants/defendants, on the other hand, other than admitting that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Sri. C.B. Oakley have denied that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had any right, title or interest therein. It was contended that the father of the appellants/defendants, Sri. Ponnuswamy Mudaliar and one Narayanappa entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 23.11.1949 [Ex.D1] with Sri. C.B.Oakley and part consideration was paid. Pursuant thereto, Sri. Ponnuswamy Mudaliar was put in possession of the suit property. He thereafter got the khata recorded in his name and started paying taxes and after his death in the year 1965, the mother of the appellants/defendants Smt. Muttamma got the khata endorsement in her name on22.08.1975 [Ex.D-2] and paid property taxes thereafter. It is further stated that although

Click Here to Read the rest of this document