Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24958

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J
R K Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmamma – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1519 OF 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A Sampath
For the Respondents: G Chandrashekharaiah

In a suit for injunction involving disputed title, the plaintiff must establish a clear chain of title and possession of their predecessors; failure to prove that the vendor inherited the specific property or that it was retained after layout formation warrants dismissal of the suit.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Suit for permanent injunction - Burden of proof - Title and possession - Plaintiffs claimed title derived from a chain of transactions initially starting from a predecessor-in-interest who allegedly formed a layout - Defendants successfully demonstrated superior documentary evidence and possession - Trial Court dismissed suit due to failure of plaintiffs to prove vendor's title or possession.

(B) Power of Attorney - Mere execution and non-production of accompanying evidence regarding partition and inheritance of the specific suit schedule property rendered the conveyance ineffective as against the defendants.

Facts of the case:
The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming title to certain sites within land originally measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.3/3. Their claim was based on a sale deed from a purchaser who bought the land from the original owner's successor. The defendants, legal heirs of another successor, contested this, asserting the plaintiffs' vendors lacked title and that the property belonged to the defendants through inheritance from their predecessor.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the title of their vendors, T.Rangaswamy and T.Venkatesh, or that their predecessor, Tirupathappa, had retained the suit properties at the time of his death. The Court further observed that revenue records and certificates stood in favor of the defendants.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs-appellants established title and possession over the suit property, and whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for injunction where title is disputed, the plaintiff must prove possession and the foundation of their title. Since the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of the formation of the layout by their predecessor, failed to show the transition of property from the predecessor to the vendors, and given that the power of attorney failed to establish conveyed title, the burden of proof required for a decree of permanent injunction was not met.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the suit for injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual complexity of title claims over ancestral property. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. parties argument and burden of proof in injunction suits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. analysis of contemporaneous title transaction documents. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. requirement to show evidence of retention and possession. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. invalidity of unregistered power of attorney conveying interest. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.11290/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05TH MARCH, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT

This first appeal is under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs whose suit in O.S.No.11290/2006 for injunction is dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 are in appeal.

2. The suit filed in respect of immovable properties described are as under:

Item No.1: Site bearing No.14, V.P.Khata No.109/A, having Assessment No.3/3, situated at Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West:30 feet and North-South:50 feet, totally measuring 1500 square feet with a shed and a compound wall built around it. The boundaries are described as under:

East:Road

West:Property No.13 belonged to S.K.Udayashankar

North:Road

South:Sterling Apartments property belonged to M.Anjanamurthy.

Item No.2: Site bearing No.1, V.P.Khata No.109/A, having Assessment No.3/3, situated at Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West:30 feet and North-South:44 feet, totally measuring 1320 square feet with a shed and a compound wall built around it. The boundaries are described as under:

East: Property No.2

West: Remaining portion of Property No.1

North: Road

South: Sterling Apartments property belonged to M.Anjanamurthy

3. The plaintiffs seek injunction against the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and a restraint order from alienating the suit schedule properties.

4. This case was heard along with RFAs No.1514/2018, 1515/2018, 1516/2018, 1517/2018, 1518/2018 and 1520/2018. During the hearing, the counsel appearing for both sides submitted that, certain transactions evidenced in the registered sale deeds filed in RFA No.1514/2018 arising from O.S No.11276/2006 are not in dispute. Thus, while narrating the facts of the case, the Court has also taken note of the transactions evidenced in O.S.No.11276/2006, as the parties to the proceeding are claiming right over the sites formed in Sy.No.3/3 in all the cases referred to above.

5. The property bearing Survey No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in Lottegollahalli Village originally belonged to Hanumanthappa. Said Hanumanthappa had two wives namely; Byamma and Thayamma. It appears that both marriages are valid and from both wives Hanumanthappa had children and among them, a son from first wife Byamma was named as Narasimhaiah and a son from second wife Thayamma was also named as Narasimhaiah.

6. The plaintiffs claim that there was an oral partition in the family during lifetime of Hanumanthappa and in the said oral partition, Narasimhaiah son of Hanumanthappa from first wife Byamma was allotted 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Survey No.3/3. The plaintiffs claim that said 1 acre 13 guntas of land in Survey No.3/3 was later sold by Narasimhaiah-son of Byamma to Muniswamappa under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1956.

7. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24958

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAnant Ramanath Hegde, JR K Venkatesh – AppellantVersusLakshmamma – RespondentREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1519 OF 2018

In a suit for injunction involving disputed title, the plaintiff must establish a clear chain of title and possession of their predecessors; failure to prove that the vendor inherited the specific property or that it was retained after layout formation warrants dismissal of the suit.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J
R K Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmamma – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1519 OF 2018