Karnataka High Court
Lalitha Shedthi vs Shubha D Shetty on 9 September, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35708
RSA No. 999 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 999 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
LALITHA SHEDTHI
W/O SHIVANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT DURGA NIVAS
NEAR GOVT HOSPITAL
NITTE VILLAGE AND POST
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARATHI B, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHUBHA D SHETTY
W/O DINESH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
Digitally
2. DINESH SHETTY
signed by HUSBAND OF SHUDHA SHETTY
NANDINI M S AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
Location:
HIGH COURT BOTH ARE R/AT VAMSHA KALIKAMBA
OF
KARNATAKA TEMPLE, MANIKALI PADU
RAILWAY CROSS, MURGAN GATE
MANGALORE - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.10.2019 PASSED IN RA
NO.107/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
UDUPI PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2013 PASSED IN OS
NO.127/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
UDUPI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35708
RSA No. 999 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Smt. Arathi B and Sri K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.127/2009.
3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
The suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that she is the sister-in-law of Midkey Shedthi, who was the owner of the plaint property. It is the case of the plaintiff that she was residing along with her husband in the plaint property along with Midkey Shedthi and after Midkey Shedthi passed away she has shifted the residence to Nitte, which is 10 km away from the suit property and often -3- NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR she used to visit the suit property and for the remaining period she had kept the suit property as lock and key.
4. It is further contended by the plaintiff that about a week earlier to filing of the suit, defendants started entering into a peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by storing the granite stones and attempted to demolish the existing structure and constructed new building thereon.
5. It is also contended that defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property and therefore sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement stating that Midkey Shedthi is grand daughter of their senior aunt and Midkey Shedthi executed a will in favour of defendant No.1 and her brother, who is not a party to the suit.
7. They further contended that plaintiff has no right whatsoever in respect of suit property nor she had the possession of the suit property anytime earlier to filing of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR suit. Even in the time of life of Smt. Midkey Shedthi. The plaintiff being the sister in law of the Midkey Shedthi is trying to lay claim on the suit property detrimental to the interest of defendant and sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. Learned trial Judge after raising necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and by considered judgment dated 28.10.2013 decreed the suit as prayed for.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.107/2023.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and after raising necessary points, noted that as against the contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiff, defendants have got the title of the suit property inasmuch as Midkey Shedthi had executed a will in favour of defendant No.1 and her brother, who is not a party to the suit and allowed the appeal and reversed the decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR
11. Coordinate bench of this Court by order dated 07.06.2023 has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether the First Appellate Court justified in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court?
2. Whether the First Appellate Court justified in holding that plaintiff has failed to prove the possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit?"
12. Smt. Arathi B, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that plaintiff being the sister-in-law (wife of brother of Midkey Shedthi) was in possession of the suit property right from the period when Midkey Shedthi was alive and just now in possession of the suit property.
13. She also contended that plaintiff had a small hotel business at Nitte and in that regard used to visit Nitte and staying in Nitte for couple of days and often used to visit the suit property and for the remaining period the suit property was kept under lock and key by the plaintiff which has been rightly appreciated by the trial Judge while decreeing the suit of the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR plaintiff and sought for allowing the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.
14. In that regard, she has placed reliance on the RTC extracts wherein the name of the plaintiff is shown as Lalli, which is not in dispute by the defendants inasmuch as they have filed a caveat petition before this Court, they showed the name of the plaintiff as Lalli. Therefore, the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant.
15. Per contra, Sri K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondents-defendants supported the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court by contending that Midkey Shedthi has executed a will in favour of defendant No.1 and her brother.
16. He would further contend that knowing full well about Midkey Shedthi executed a will in favour of defendant No.1 and her brother, plaintiff failed to implead the second leagatee in the same will, who is none other than the brother of defendant No.1 and continued with the suit even after the will -7- NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR was placed on record would expose the hollowness in the claim of the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
17. He would further contend that as against the right that the plaintiff is propounding defendant No.1 placed before the Court title of the suit property by virtue of the will executed by Midkey Shedthi during her life time in favour of defendant No.1, who is none other than the grand daughter of senior aunt.
18. Therefore, the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which requires no interference by this Court and therefore, substantial questions of law raised in the appeal needs to be answered against the appellant and appeal needs to be dismissed.
19. Having heard the arguments, this Court meticulously perused the material on record. As could be seen from the plaint paragraph No.1 and 2, there is no specific right that the plaintiff has shown to be in lawful possession of the following property which is herein referred to as 'suit property'. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR "Schedule A: Description of the plaint properties. Immovable properties situated in Padebettu village of Udupi taluk and district.
Item S.No. & Extent
No. S.D.no. A. Cents
1 28/21B 0.27-Bounderies-N-28/21e1 and 28/36
E-28/21A1
S-28/21C8
W-28/21e2
2 28/21c2 0.28-Boundaries N-28/21B
E-28/21B
S-28/21e3
W-28/34
The above properties with a tiled residential building bearing Padubidri Panchayath door number 3-64, trees, well and other improvements standing thereon, rights of way and water and all other appurtenances thereto."
20. For the sake of certainty and clarity paragraph Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint is extracted herein under:
"1) That the immovable properties described in schedule 'A' to the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the plaint properties now belong to and are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and children. On the plaint properties there is a tiled residential house bearing Padudbidri Grama Panchayat door no.3-64.
2) That the plaintiff was running a small hotel in Nitte of Karkala taluk. She has however closed the said business now. She visits the plaint properties quite often and stays in the residential house standing thereon for brief periods. During rest of the time the said house is kept locked"-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR
21. As could be seen from the contents of aforesaid paragraphs the plaintiff herself has stated that she is residing in Nitte and she used to often visit the suit property and kept the suit property in lock and key. To substantiate the said aspects of the matter no other witness is examined on behalf of the plaintiff like bajudar or any other relative of Midkey Shedthi.
22. Lock and key of suit property which was allegedly possessed by the plaintiff is also not placed before the Court nor a court commissioner got appointed so as to visit suit property and open the suit property by the key allegedly held by the plaintiff.
23. Further, the plaintiff married to Shivanna Shetty, who is none other than the brother of Midkety Shedthi, who had a residence in Nitte at Karkala Taluk, where plaintiff used to stay. As such how plaintiff is used to visit suit property which is 12 km away from her husband's place is a question that remains unanswered.
24. Admittedly, Midkety Shedthi got the suit property by filing Form No.7 when the Land Reforms Act, 1961 came into force and thereafter he was in possession of the suit property having regard to the order of the Land Tribunal
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR granting occupancy rights in favour of the Midkety Shedthi. In Ex.P.1, which is of the year 2007-08, three names that is forthcoming in column No.12 are Lalli, Amba Shetty, Lalitha.
25. To establish that plaintiff was in lawful possession, three documents are placed on record, which are RTC and tax paid receipts.
26. In Ex.P.1 and P2 three names are found in column No.12, which would indicate possession over the suit property.
27. So also in Ex.P.2, those three names are appearing for the year 2007-08. Where as tax paid receipts, it is shown as Lalitha Shedthi. Whether the plaintiff is Lalitha Shedthi @ Lalli as is shown in Ex.P.1 and 2 is a question that remains unanswered and no other material evidence is place on record.
28. A feeble attempt is made by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court that when caveat came to be filed by the respondents, they named the plaintiff as Lalli, which is found in Ex.P1 and 2, who is none other than the plaintiff.
29. It is pertinent to note that suit is one for permanent injunction and mere mentioning of the name Lalli for the year 2007-08, Ex.Ps.1 and 2 would not ipso facto make out a case that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. More so,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR when her husband is residing in Nitte Village of Karkala Taluk, which is about 12 km away from the suit property.
30. As on the date of filing of the suit, plaintiff was aged 73 years and it is highly unimaginable that everyday or very often plaintiff alone would visit suit property at Padubidri from Nitte only to supervise the suit property.
31. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, mere mention of the name of the plaintiff in cultivating column in column No.12 in Exs.P1 and 2 it could not be presumed that she was cultivating the suit property in and around the house, which is portion of the suit property.
32. More over, even as per the plaint averments, there is no cultivation and only standing trees are available in the suit property.
33. Under such circumstances, lawful possession is not established by the plaintiff in the categorical finding recorded by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court.
34. Further, as against the right propounded by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 has claimed the right over the suit property by virtue of will executed by Midkety Shedthi during her lifetime.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35708 RSA No. 999 of 2020 HC-KAR
35. Defendant No.1 is none other than Midkey Shedthi's senior aunt's granddaughter. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Judge of the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the suit property and reversing the decreeing of the suit by the impugned judgment is thus justified.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, substantial questions of law referred to supra are to be answered negative and against the plaintiff / appellant and accordingly they are answered.
37. In view of the foregoing discussion and answer to the substantial questions of law, following order is passed:-
ORDER Appeal is meritless.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73 ```