Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22687

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.Indiresh, J
Gangamma – Appellant
Versus
Puttarevamma – Respondent
RSA No. 1265 of 2016 | RSA No. 1264 of 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijayakumar S.C.
For the Respondents: Ravishankar S.

A suit for declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable if filed by a plaintiff not in possession of the property, without seeking the consequential relief of recovery of possession. This requirement is a mandatory provision to prevent the multiplicity of suits.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction - Maintainability - When plaintiff is out of possession and is able to seek further relief of recovery of possession, omission to do so renders suit not maintainable - Proviso to Section 34 is mandatory and enjoins Court not to pass a declaratory decree where plaintiff omits to seek consequential relief of possession. (Paras 16, 17, 19)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope and ambit - High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless finding is perverse or not based on material on record - Where two inferences are possible from a set of circumstances, the one drawn by lower appellate court is binding on High Court. (Paras 21)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that two sale deeds executed by defendants were illegal and not binding, asserting ownership of the property through a previous mortgage and sale deed. Defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable as it sought a negative declaration without seeking the specific relief of recovery of possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part by declaring the sale deeds illegal but denying the injunction. The First Appellate Court allowed the defendants' appeal, setting aside the judgment and dismissing the suit entirely.

Findings of Court:
Evidence confirmed that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property at the time of the suit. An admission by the plaintiff's witness in cross-examination corroborated that the defendants were in possession. As the plaintiffs failed to seek the relief of recovery of possession, the suit was deemed not maintainable under the mandatory provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

Issues: Whether the suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable without a prayer for recovery of possession when the plaintiff is out of possession, and whether the Appellate Court erred in interfering with the trial court's findings.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for declaration and permanent injunction, where the plaintiff is out of possession at the time of filing, is not maintainable if the plaintiff fails to seek the further consequential relief of recovery of possession, as required by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background and factual history of the property dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 13)
2. arguments concerning maintainability of the declaratory suit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. proviso to section 34 of specific relief act excludes suits for declaration without consequential possession, where the plaintiff is out of possession. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

IN RSA No. 1265/2016

BETWEEN:

1. GANGAMMA

W/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

2. LATHA

D/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

3. MANJUNATHA

S/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

ALL ARE R/O SHETTYHALLI PALYA

(CHENNIGAYYANAPALYA)

WARD NO.32

TUMKUR CITY - 572101.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. PUTTAREVAMMA

W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAPPA

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

RESPONDENTS NO. 2, 3, 5, AND 6.

2. S.H. NAGARAJU

S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3. SAROJAMMA

W/O S.H. NAGARAJ

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

4. SOWMYA

D/O S.H. NAGARAJU

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

4(a). YASHSWINI

D/O SOWMYA

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

4(b). VARUN

S/O SOWMYA

AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

RESPONDENTS NO.4(a) AND 4(b)

ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY

THEIR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.2

S.H. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHRAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/AT SHETTYHALLI

TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 101.

5. MANU

S/O S.H. NAGARAJU

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

6. PALLAVI

D/O S.H. NAGARAJU

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT SHETTYHALLI

TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 101.

7. GANGANARASAIAH

S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

7(a). HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(b). NARASIMHAMURTHY

S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(c). SAROJAMMA

D/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(d). MAHANTESH

S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(e). BHAGYAMMA

W/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

RESPONDENTS NO.7(a) TO 7(e)

ARE R/AT VAMAJENAHALLI VILLAGE

KOLALA POST & HOBLI - 572 140

KORATAGERE TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT.

8. SMT. G.L. LALITHADEVI

D/O G.C. LAKSHMINARAYANA SWAMY

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

APPAGONDANAHALLI

MANNE POST

THYAMAGOUNDLU HOBLI,

NELAMANGALA TALUK,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8;

R2 TO R6 ARE LRS OF R1 V/O DATED 30.07.2025.

R4(a) AND R4(b) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2.)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.04.2016 PASSED IN R.A.

NO.25/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND

SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

15.12.2015 PASSED IN O.S. NO.987/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU.

IN RSA NO. 1264/2016:

BETWEEN:

1. GANGAMMA

W/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

2. LATHA

D/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

3. MANJUNATHA

S/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

ALL ARE R/O SHETTYHALLI PALYA

(CHENNIGAYYANAPALYA)

WARD NO.32

TUMKUR CITY - 572101.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. PUTTAREVAMMA

W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAPPA

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

RESPONDENTS NO. 2, 3, 5, AND 6.

2. S.H. NAGARAJU

S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3. SAROJAMMA

W/O S.H. NAGARAJ

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

4. SOWMYA

D/O S.H. NAGARAJU

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

4(a). YASHSWINI

D/O SOWMYA

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

4(b). VARUN

S/O SOWMYA

AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

RESPONDENTS NO.4(a) AND 4(b)

ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY

THEIR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.2

S.H. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHRAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/AT SHETTYHALLI

TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 101.

5. MANU

S/O S.H. NAGARAJU

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

6. PALLAVI

D/O S.H. NAGARAJU

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT SHETTYHALLI

TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 101.

7. GANGANARASAIAH

S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

7(a). HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(b). NARASIMHAMURTHY

S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(c). SAROJAMMA

D/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(d). MAHANTESH

S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MAJOR

7(e). BHAGYAMMA

W/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH

AGED : MA

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22687

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAE.S.Indiresh, JGangamma – AppellantVersusPuttarevamma – RespondentRSA No. 1265 of 2016 | RSA No. 1264 of 2016

A suit for declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable if filed by a plaintiff not in possession of the property, without seeking the consequential relief of recovery of possession. This requirement is a mandatory provision to prevent the multiplicity of suits.

Cases Referred (11)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.Indiresh, J
Gangamma – Appellant
Versus
Puttarevamma – Respondent
RSA No. 1265 of 2016 | RSA No. 1264 of 2016