IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

R.F.A.No.266 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1.

Smt. Ashwathamma

W/o late Sri. Papaiah,

Aged about 79 years.

2.

Sri. Umesh S/o Late Papaiah,

Aged about 45 years,

Occ:Business.

3.

Sri. Radhakrishna

S/o Late Papaiah,

Aged about 45 years,

Occ: Business.

Appellants No.1 to 3 are

R/o No.5/36, Kadugondanahally,

Bengaluru-560045. &Appellants

(By Sri Shantesh Gureddi, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. Altaf Ahmed,

S/o Sri. L.Abdul Ghaffoor,

Aged about 49 years,

Occ:Not known to appellant

R/o No.298/1, Thimmaiah Road,

Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560051. &Respondent

(By Sri M.D.Raghunath, Advocate)

RFA.No.266/2016

2

This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil

Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment and decree

passed by the Learned XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in O.S.No.25653/2008 dated

27.01.2016 consequently dismiss the Suit O.S.No.25653/2008

and pass such other order, relief and direction which this

Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of

the case in the interest of justice and equity.

This Appeal coming on for Final Hearing through Physical

Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day the Court

delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

It is a defendants' appeal. The present respondent, as a

plaintiff, had instituted a suit in O.S.No.25653/2008, on the file

of learned XIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit,

Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `trial Court9),

against the appellants herein arraying them as defendants, for

the relief of permanent injunction.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial

Court was that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule

property and has acquired the same under a Deed of Sale dated

31.03.2004 and got Katha transferred in his name and that he

is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property by paying taxes to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara

Palike (BBMP) upto date. The defendants having no manner of

RFA.No.266/2016

3

right, title and interest in the suit schedule property are trying

to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property. He has also stated that he has enclosed

the suit schedule property with a compound wall on all sides.

The defendants with an intention to grab the land, are trying to

interfere with his possession of the suit schedule property. One

such attempt was made on 09.04.2008, however, the

jurisdictional police were of no help to the plaintiff though

he approached them. As such, he was constrained to file the

suit.

3. In response to the summons served upon them, the

defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their

written

statement,

wherein

they

denied

all

the

plaint

averments. They contended that the property in Survey N.141

of Kadugondanahalli, Bengaluru, now coming under the limits of

BBMP Ward No.94, to an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas was

belonged to Sri Papaiah, who was the husband of defendant

No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The said Sri Papaiah

died on the date 26.08.1999. After his demise, the property

came to the defendants and they are in possession and

enjoyment of the same. They specifically contended that during

RFA.No.266/2016

4

his life time, Sri Papaiah has not conveyed any property or

any portion thereof in favour of the plaintiff nor he executed

any General Power of Attorney in favour of anybody. They

stated that they have also not parted with their right and

possession of the property in favour of anybody. They further

stated that the alleged execution of the Sale Deed is dated

31.03.2004 in favour of the plaintiff by Sri Papaiah through his

alleged General Power of Attorney Holder and since Sri