GANGI REDDY vs N VANI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
GANGI REDDY
S/O VENAKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BUCHEPALLI VILLAGE
BETHAMANGALA HOBLI
BANGARAPET TALUK
KOLAR DIST - 563113
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
N VANI
W/O NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/T BUCHEPALLI VILLAGE
BETHAMANGALA HOBLI
BANGARAPET TALUK
KOLAR DIST - 563113
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2024 PASSED IN RA NO. 135/2023 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF), ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2023 PASSED IN
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
O.S.NO.288/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, KGF.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.288/2015 on the file of the I
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F., has filed this regular
second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated
15.02.2023 passed therein, as well as the judgment and decree
dated 26.06.2024 passed by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.) in R.A.No.135/2023.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they
were arrayed before the trial Court. The appellant herein was
the defendant, while the respondent was the plaintiff in
O.S.No.288/2015.
3. (i) The suit in O.S.No.288/2015 was filed for
perpetual injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.74 of
Buchepalli, Bethamangala Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, measuring 3
acres 38 guntas. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
belonged to Narayanareddy, who sold it to Ramachari in terms
of a sale deed dated 12.04.1941. Later, Ramachari sold it to
Mr.Papireddy on 15.01.1953. After the death of Papireddy, his
wife inherited the properties and her name was entered in the
revenue records. She later executed a gift deed on 09.04.2015
in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, the name of the
plaintiff is entered in the revenue records.
(ii) She claimed that the defendant, though having no
manner of right, title or interest in the suit property, made an
attempt to interfere with her possession and she was therefore
advised to sue the defendant for perpetual injunction.
(iii) The defendant contested the suit and claimed that
the suit property stood in the name of Gopalreddy, who is his
grandfather. The said Gopalreddy had two sons named
Venkatareddy, who is the father of the plaintiff and Ramareddy.
Mr.Gopalreddy was in possession of the suit property along with
his children and after his death, his two children continued in
possession and after the death of Venkatareddy and
Ramareddy, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. He claimed that the khatha of the suit property was
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
transferred to his name in the year 1999-2000 and that the
plaintiff and her mother-in-law(Smt.Narayanamma) have no
manner of right, title or interest in the suit property. He
contends that he has filed a suit for declaration that he has
perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He thus
contended that he is in possession of the suit property and
therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of perpetual
injunction.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court
framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that, she is in
"
possession and enjoyment of the suit property as
on the date of suit?
(2) Whether the Plaintiff proves the alleged
interference of the defendant?
(3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitle for the relief of
Permanent Injunction as prayed for?
(4) What order or decree?"
5. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and she
marked Exs.P.1 to P.28 of which Ex.P.1 was the gift deed and
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
Exs.P.2 to P.6 are the mutation extracts and Exs.P.7 to P.14
were the RTC extracts, which reflected the antecedent title of
the vendors of the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as
DW-1 and he marked Exs.D.1 to D.20, which were primarily
RTC extracts. He also examined a witness as DW-2.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court held that the revenue records marked by the
defendants established that it was the defendant who was in
possession of the suit property and consequently, dismissed the
suit for perpetual injunction.
7. (i) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, the plaintiff filed R.A.No.135/2023. The First Appellate
Court held that the mother-in-law of the plaintiff had filed an
appeal challenging the khatha that stood in the name of the
defendant before the Assistant Commissioner and that the
appeal was allowed and the khatha that stood in the name of
the defendant was set aside.
(ii) It noted that DW-1 admitted that after the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the revenue records
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
was transferred to the name of the mother-in-law of the
plaintiff. The defendant admitted that the mother-in-law of the
plaintiff had executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and
accordingly, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the
revenue records, which were not challenged by the defendant.
The First Appellate Court therefore held that the plaintiff had
proved the title of her predecessors to the property and also
proved her title to the suit property and also that she was in
possession of the suit property and consequently allowed the
appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court and decreed the suit.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
the defendant is before this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the defendant contended
that the defendant is in adverse possession of the property in
question and therefore, the First Appellate Court could not have
lightly considered the revenue records. He contends that the
revenue records established a fact that the defendant was in
possession from the year 1967 and onwards and therefore, the
First Appellate Court could not have lightly considered the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
documentary evidence which established that the defendant
was in possession.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff
contended that the suit for perpetual injunction was filed based
on title and that the plaintiff had established that her mother-
in-law (Smt. Narayanamma) had succeeded to the property
from her husband, who had purchased the property from
Ramachari and Ramachari had purchased it from
Narayanareddy. He therefore contends that when the suit for
perpetual injunction was based on title and the property in
question was vacant land, the first principle of law namely that
possession follows title was rightly applied by the First
Appellate Court. He contends that the trial Court without going
into the legality of the revenue entries in the light of Sections
128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
considered the revenue records in the name of the defendant to
dismiss the suit. He contends that the First Appellate Court
after perusing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
and the consequent revenue entries that was restored in the
name of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, rightly decreed the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
suit and therefore no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this appeal.
11. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the
defendant.
12. A perusal of the written statement filed by the
defendant before the trial Court goes on to show that the
defendant was not claiming title to the property but was
claiming that he was in possession of the property based on
certain revenue entries. These revenue entries were set at
nought by the Assistant Commissioner, as the same were not
based on any registered instruments in favour of the defendant
and his ancestors. This order of the Assistant Commissioner is
not questioned by the defendant before the appropriate
Revenue Authority and he has not filed any suit as prescribed
under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,
although he filed a suit for a declaration that he has perfected
his title to the suit property by adverse possession. When once
the defendant had filed the suit for declaration of right by
prescription, it invariably meant that he admitted the title of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61941
RSA No. 91 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010040042025
the plaintiff to the suit property and therefore, the First
Appellate Court rightly decreed the suit for perpetual injunction,
which was based on prior title of the plaintiff to the suit
schedule property. Therefore, no substantial question of law
arises for consideration in this appeal and hence, the appeal is
dismissed
.
13. It is made clear that any observations or findings
recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.288/2015 and
R.A.No.135/2013 would not affect the decision in
O.S.No.217/2015, which is pending consideration before the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
BKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92