VASANTHEGOWDA vs SRI VENKATESH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2014 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
VASANTHEGOWDA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A AMBALARE VILLAGE
HARAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107
MYSORE DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VENKATESH
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YERS
2. SRI CHANDREGOWDA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. SRI JAGADISHA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
APPELLANTS 1 TO 3
R/A AMBALARE VILLAGE
HARANHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107
MYSORE DISTRICT.
4. SMT RAJAMMA
W/O PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A SANGARASETTYHALLI VILLAGE
CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
K R NAGAR TALUK-571 602
MYSORE DISTRICT.
5. SMT RUKMINI
W/O PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A KAGGUNDI VILLAGE
RAVANDUR VILLAGE
PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107.
6. SMT LEELAVATHI
W/O JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A KAGGALA VILLAGE
RAVANDUR HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107.
7. SMT VIMALA
W/O RAVI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A DAMMANAHALLI KOPPALU
KITTUR POST, RAVANDUR HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107
MYSORE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVANNA K.M, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3
R-4 TO R-7 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT &
DECREE DTD 27.11.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.180/2009 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 21.2.2008 PASSED IN
OS.NO.165/2006 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC,
PERIYAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellant herein and also in
R.A.No.180/2009 (defendant in O.S.No.165/2006) filed before the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at
Periyapatna (for short “the First Appellate Court”), whereby the said
appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by the First
Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2013 by
confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2008 passed in
O.S.No.165/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,
Periyapatna (for short “the Trial Court”), wherein the said suit filed
by the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on
record.
3. Though respondent Nos.4 to 7 are served, they
remained unrepresented and have not chosen to contest the
appeal.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to by their rankings before the Trial Court.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the Memorandum of Appeal and referring to the reliefs sought for
by the plaintiff in the plaint in O.S.No.165/2006 in order to point out
that the only relief sought for by the plaintiff was for permanent
injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from alienating or
encumbering the suit schedule property and there was no prayer
sought for by the original plaintiff restraining the appellant
defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was therefore submitted
that in the absence of a specific prayer restraining the appellant
from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property, both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court
fell in error in moulding the relief in failing to appreciate that without
there being a prayer for permanent injunction restraining
interference with possession, it was impermissible in law for
granting a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff
and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
and First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside and the suit of
the respondent plaintiff deserved to be dismissed.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents, the
legal representatives of the original plaintiff would fairly admit that
though there were sufficient pleadings in the entire plaint wherein
the respondent-plaintiff had specifically alleged that he was filing a
suit against the appellant-defendant who on the ground that the
appellant-defendant had illegally and high handedly interfered with
the enjoyment of the respondent plaintiff over the suit schedule
property, due to oversight and inadvertence, the original plaintiff did
not seek a formal/specific prayer for permanent injunction
restraining the appellant from interfering with the plaintiff's
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was
therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court be set aside
and the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh and in accordance with law, by permitting
the respondents, who are the legal representatives of the original
plaintiff to file appropriate application seeking amendment of the
pleadings and seeking additional prayers in the suit.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
7. By way of reply learned counsel for the appellant-
defendant submits that he has no objection for the impugned
judgment and decree passed by both the courts to be set aside and
the matter remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh
and in accordance with law. He would however submit that in the
event the respondents, who are the legal representatives the
original plaintiff file any interlocutory application(s) including an
application for amendment of the pleadings and prayer, the
appellant would file detailed objections to such application(s) and
contest the same and the Trial Court may be directed to consider
the same in accordance with law and all rival contentions between
the parties on all aspects including the interlocutory applications to
be filed by the respondent may be kept open to be decided by the
Trial Court in accordance with law.
his Court framed the following substantial
8. On 02.11.2026, t
question of law:
“Whether both the courts were justified in granting a decree
for permanent injunction in favour of the respondents-
plaintiffs restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering
with the respondents’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule immovable property without appreciating
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
that the original plaintiff whose legal representatives are the
respondents herein filed the instant suit in O.S.No.165/2006
seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from
alienating the suit schedule immovable property by showing
the boundary of the suit schedule property by means of
permanent injunction and without seeking a decree for
permanent injunction restraining interference with alleged
possession ?”
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
Re. substantial question of law:
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
joint submissions made by both sides, though several contentions
have been urged by both sides in support of their respective
claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of
the rival contentions and leaving the same open to be decided by
the Trial Court, I deem it just appropriate to set aside the impugned
judgment and decree of both Courts and remit the matter back to
the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh and in accordance with
law by issuing certain directions.
The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
27.11.2013 passed in R.A.No.180/2009 by the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting
at Periyapatna and the impugned judgment and
decree dated 21.02.2008 passed in
O.S.No.165/2006 by the Civil Judge and (Jr. Dn.)
and JMFC, Periyapatna, are hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh and in accordance with law.
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to file
appropriate interlocutory application(s) before the
Trial Court, which shall consider the same in
accordance with law, including application(s) for
amendment of pleadings and prayers.
v) In the event the appellant-defendant file such an
interlocutory application(s) before the Trial Court
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60914
RSA No. 446 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010125392014
after remand, the Trial Court shall provide an
opportunity to the opposite party to file objections
and contest the said application(s), which shall be
decided by the trial Court, in accordance with law.
vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter
including the application(s) to be filed by both the
parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed
on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
vii) Both parties are directed to appear before the Trial
Court on 07.12.2026, without awaiting further
notice from the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13