1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

R.S.A. NO.441 OF 2012 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT.UMA RANI,

W/O C.Y.SHIVE GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

R/AT NO.38, JCSTM-BLOCK,

ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD,

KUVEMPU NAGAR,

MYSORE - 570 001,

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER

SRI.C.Y.SHIVE GOWDA.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI SIDDHARTHA H.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI NINGAIAH @ CHIKKANNA,

S/O KARININGE GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

2.

SRI SHIVALINGU,

S/O NINGAIAH @ CHIKKANNA,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

3.

SRI SHIVARAJU,

S/O NINGAIAH @ CHIKKANNA,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

2

4.

SRI CHANDRU,

S/O NINGAIAH @ CHIKKANNA,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT NO.1/4,

1^ST STAGE, 2^ND CROSS,

E & F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA,

MYSORE - 570 001.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND

DECREE DATED 30.11.2011 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT

JUDGE AND SESSIONS FAST TRACK COURT-III, MYSORE

IN R.A.NO.1203/2010 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED

18.08.2009

PASSED

BY

THE

PRINCIPAL FIRST CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), MYSORE IN

O.S.NO.923/2006.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri.Siddhartha H.M., learned counsel for appellant

has appeared through video conferencing. Sri.P.Nataraju,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has appeared

in-person.

3

2.

This is an appeal from the Court of Fast Track

Court-III, Mysore confirming the judgment and decree

passed by the Court of Principal First Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.),

Mysore.

3.

Appeal is posted for Admission after notice to

respondents.

4.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall

be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before

the trial Court.

5.

The short facts are these; Originally the suit

schedule property owned by defendants and they had

executed a sale deed on 13.09.1981 in favour of one -

Smt.M.S.Sujatha and she in turn had sold the property in

favour of plaintiff’s husband one - C.Y.Shivegowda under a

sale deed dated 10.6.2006 for valuable consideration of

Rs.1,00,000/- and appears to have handed over the

possession of the property. Thus, it is the contention that

C.Y.Shivegowda is the absolute owner. It is stated by

4

plaintiff that her husband C.Y.Shivegowda executed a gift

deed on 17.06.2006 in her favor.

It is averred that pursuant to the execution of the

sale deed, the husband of plaintiff has obtained Katha of

the property in his name in the records of the Mysore City

Corporation, which has issued Katha in the name of

husband of plaintiff - Sri.C.Y.Shivegowda. It is also stated

that the Authority concerned collected the requisite taxes.

Sri.C.Y.Shivegowda had also put up the sheds in the sites

so purchased by him. It is stated that Shivegowda has

executed a gift deed on 17.06.2006 in favour of plaintiff.

Pursuant to execution of the gift deed, the possession of

the property was also delivered in favour of plaintiff.

Therefore, it is contended that plaintiff is in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

As matter stood thus, defendants having no manner

of right, title and interest have tried to interfere with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's suit

5

schedule property and she filed a suit for injunction before

the trial Court.

After service of summons, defendant No.2 has filed

written statement and defendant No.1, 3 and 4 have

adopted the written statement of defendant No.2.

Defendant

No.2

contended

that

suit

is

not

maintainable either in law or on facts. He contended that

plaintiff has created false documents to make unlawful

gain and hence, the alleged documents does not create

any possession nor right ov