- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:24886

RSA No. 2423 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2423 OF 2010 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

MR. R. PRAVEEN

S/O LATE SRI. RANGASWAMI

AGE:30 YEARS

R/AT PAKEGOWDANA PALYA

SILVEPURA VILLAGE P.O

BANGALORE-560090

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. G.PAPIREDDY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR A/W

SRI. RAVIKIRAN P., ADVOCATE-PH)

AND:

1.

MR. MARIYAPPA

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1A

ANTHONY MARY

W/O JOSEPH RAJ (FLOOR MILL)

CHIKKAMANAHALLI

GPTTOGERE POST

BENGALURU-560083

1B

SMT. SAGAYAMARY

W/O KUMAR

S/O ANANADAMMA

MARIAPURA

THATTAGUPPE

BENGALURU-82

2.

MR. DOMINK

S/O RAJANNA

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

R/AT SILVAPURA

BANGALORE-560090

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K P BHUVAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-B)-SERVED)

®

Digitally signed by

LAKSHMINARAYANA

MURTHY RAJASHRI

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:24886

RSA No. 2423 of 2010

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.4.2010 PASSED IN

R.A.NO.48/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-V, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE

JUDGMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED

8.2.2008

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.312/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. II CIVIL JUDGE

(JR.DN) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1.

This appeal is filed praying to setting aside the

judgment and decree dated 16.4.2010 passed by District

& Session Judge, Fast Tract Court-V, Bangalore Rural

District, Bangalore in RA No.48/2008 and judgment and

decree dated 8.2.2008 passed by II Additional Civil Judge

(Jn. Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in OS

No.312/1998.

2.

The appellant was the plaintiff and respondents

No.1 and 2 were defendants No.1 and 2 in OS

No.312/1998.

3.

The parties are referred to as per their rankings

in the trial Court.

4.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for the reliefs of

permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:24886

RSA No. 2423 of 2010

interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court that he is a absolute owner for having

purchased

the

suit

schedule

property

from

Smt.V.Jayalakshmi under registered sale deed dated

7.4.1998 and he is in possession of the same. It is stated

that originally suit schedule property belongs to defendant

No.1, he has executed GPA in favour of Smt.V.Jayalakshmi

authorizing her deal with the property. The katha of the

suit schedule property was in the name of defendant No.1

and he authorized Smt.V.Jayalakshmi to deal with the

property on the basis of GPA. As the original sale deed

was not returned by the Sub-Registrar’s office, the plaintiff

could not get katha transferred in his name in the

panchayath records. It is stated that defendant No.1 has

no right over the suit schedule property and he is making

efforts to sell the suit schedule property to the third

parties. It is stated that the plaintiff has put up barbed

fencing to the suit schedule property. As defendants

started interfering with his possession and trying to

- 4 -

NC: 2023:KHC:24886

RSA No. 2423 of 2010

remove the barbed wire fencing, the plaintiff has filed the

suit.

5.

The defendant No.1 and 2 has filed written

statement contending that the plaintiff has no right, title

and

interest

over

the

suit

schedule

property.

Smt.V.Jayalakshmi has no right over the suit schedule

property and to convey the said property in favour of the

plaintiff. The sale deed dated 7.4.1998 is created

document in order to knock off the property belonging to