V JAYAMMA vs GULAB JAN — RSA/863/2009

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 26-Jun-2009

CNR: KAHC010411402009

Filing Number

RSA/863/2009

Filing Date

23-Jun-2009

Registration No

RSA/863/2009

Registration Date

23-Jun-2009

Judge

Ravi V Hosmani

Coram

Ravi V Hosmani

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

RSA ( 136 )

Sub-Category

INJ-Injunction Suit ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V JAYAMMA

    Adv. G A SRIKANTE GOWDA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GULAB JAN

  2. 2.ALEEMULLA

  3. 3.NOORULLA

  4. 4.NASRULLA

  5. 5.AFZAL PASHA

  6. 6.VENKATAPPA

  7. 7.G MANJUNATHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Ravi V HosmaniView PDF

    V Jayamma v. Gulab Jan & Others - Case Summary Case No.: RSA 863/2009 | Court: Karnataka High Court | Date: April 17, 2026 Decision The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. Key Facts G. Manjunatha (plaintiff) sued for permanent injunction against defendants claiming possession of land (Sy.no.67/3, 2 acres 24 guntas) based on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966 executed by original owner Chikkamuniswamy to his father. Defendants claimed ownership through registered sale deeds (though containing errors in survey numbers), which were corrected by compromise decree in OS 135/2004. Court's Reasoning The court held that: 1. Unregistered agreement cannot support suit: Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an unregistered agreement of sale does not confer any right or interest in immovable property valued over Rs. 100. 2. No maintainability of bare injunction suit: When defendants dispute title and raise a "cloud" over plaintiff's title, a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration of title (following *Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy* and *Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi*). 3. Agreement holder has no locus standi: An agreement holder cannot sue third parties. Rights under an agreement exist only against the vendor/transferor, not third parties. 4. Inadequate evidence of possession: Plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession over the suit property on the date of suit filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Further Hearing

    Ravi V Hosmani

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    Further Hearing

    Ravi V Hosmani

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Further Hearing

    Ravi V Hosmani

  6. 13-Feb-2026

    Final Hearing

    Ravi V Hosmani

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Final Hearing

    Ravi V Hosmani

  8. 27-Jan-2026

    Final Hearing

    Ravi V Hosmani

  9. 25-Sep-2025

    Final Hearing

    Pradeep Singh Yerur

  10. 19-Sep-2025

    Final Hearing

    Pradeep Singh Yerur

  11. 11-Sep-2025

    Final Hearing

    Pradeep Singh Yerur

  12. 04-Sep-2025

    Final Hearing

    Pradeep Singh Yerur

  13. 22-Aug-2025

    Final Hearing

    Pradeep Singh Yerur

  14. 07-Aug-2025

    Final Hearing

    Anant Ramanath Hegde

  15. 24-Jul-2025

    Final Hearing

    Anant Ramanath Hegde

  16. 17-Jul-2025

    Final Hearing

    Anant Ramanath Hegde

  17. 10-Jul-2025

    Final Hearing

    Anant Ramanath Hegde

  18. 03-Jul-2025

    Final Hearing

    Anant Ramanath Hegde

  19. 26-Jun-2025

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    Anant Ramanath Hegde

  20. 29-Nov-2023

    Final Hearing

    Jyoti M

  21. 06-Nov-2023

    Final Hearing

    Jyoti M

  22. 07-Mar-2023

    Arguments

    G Basavaraja

  23. 08-Feb-2023

    Final Hearing

    G Basavaraja

  24. 31-Jan-2023

    Final Hearing

    Sachin Shankar Magadum

  25. 23-Feb-2022

    Final Hearing

    N S Sanjay Gowda

  26. 16-Feb-2022

    Final Hearing

    N S Sanjay Gowda

  27. 09-Feb-2022

    Final Hearing

    N S Sanjay Gowda

  28. 02-Feb-2022

    Final Hearing

    N S Sanjay Gowda

  29. 19-Jan-2022

    Final Hearing

    N S Sanjay Gowda

  30. 12-Jan-2022

    Final Hearing

    N S Sanjay Gowda

  31. 05-Jan-2022

    Final Hearing - 2:30 Pm

    H.T. Narendra Prasad

  32. 14-Dec-2021

    Final Hearing

    S Vishwajith Shetty

  33. 18-Sep-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  34. 18-Sep-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  35. 12-Sep-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  36. 07-Aug-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  37. 24-Jul-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  38. 24-Jul-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  39. 17-Jul-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  40. 04-Jul-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  41. 19-Jun-2014

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  42. 09-Jan-2014

    Admission

    H.billappa

  43. 16-Dec-2013

    Admission

    A.s.pachhapure

  44. 21-Feb-2011

    Admission

    L.narayana Swamy

  45. 18-Feb-2011

    Admission

    L.narayana Swamy

  46. 09-Feb-2011

    Admission

    L.narayana Swamy

  47. 25-Jan-2011

    Admission

    L.narayana Swamy

  48. 26-Oct-2010

    Admission

    K.govindarajulu

  49. 26-Jun-2009

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  50. 23-Jun-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/863/2009

casestatus.in Summary

V Jayamma v. Gulab Jan & Others - Case Summary Case No.: RSA 863/2009 | Court: Karnataka High Court | Date: April 17, 2026 Decision The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. Key Facts G. Manjunatha (plaintiff) sued for permanent injunction against defendants claiming possession of land (Sy.no.67/3, 2 acres 24 guntas) based on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 15.08.1966 executed by original owner Chikkamuniswamy to his father. Defendants claimed ownership through registered sale deeds (though containing errors in survey numbers), which were corrected by compromise decree in OS 135/2004. Court's Reasoning The court held that: 1. Unregistered agreement cannot support suit: Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an unregistered agreement of sale does not confer any right or interest in immovable property valued over Rs. 100. 2. No maintainability of bare injunction suit: When defendants dispute title and raise a "cloud" over plaintiff's title, a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration of title (following *Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy* and *Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi*). 3. Agreement holder has no locus standi: An agreement holder cannot sue third parties. Rights under an agreement exist only against the vendor/transferor, not third parties. 4. Inadequate evidence of possession: Plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession over the suit property on the date of suit filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case