1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

R.F.A.NO.201/2006 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

RAJANNA

S/O THANGAVELU

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

R/AT L.B.S.NAGAR

YELAHANKA

BENGALURU-560064.

& APPELLANT

[BY SRI B.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE]

AND:

GOVINDACHAR

S/O RAJAPPACHAR

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

GOPAL AND BROS. TRACTOR

BODY BUILDERS, B.B.ROAD

VENKATALA, YELAHANKA POST

BENGALURU-560064.

& RESPONDENT

[BY SRI PARASHURAM R. HATTARKIHAL, ADVOCATE]

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2005

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.5739/1997

ON

THE

FILE

OF

XVII

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.16),

DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree

dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.5739/1997 on the file of

XVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (SCCH-16),

dismissing the suit filed for the relief of bare injunction and also

for the relief of mandatory injunction.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Trial Court to avoid the confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff has

filed a suit at the first instance for the relief of permanent

injunction claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property

bearing Site No.35 measuring 30 feet x 40 feet situated in

Sy.No.10/1 from Maruthi House Building Co-operative Society

Limited. His mother Late Poovangam had purchased the same

under the Sale Deed No.3058 of 1969-70. The plaintiff9s mother

passed away on 15.09.1975. Thereafter, khatha was changed in

his name and he has paid the taxes and also paid the betterment

charges and obtained the license for construction of the building.

3

The defendant being the owner of the adjacent Site No.34

without any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property

trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property since last two months. The matter

was also reported to the Municipal Council. The plaintiff also

approached the local police for protection and also his property.

The police failed to give protection on the ground that the matter

was of civil nature. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended the

plaint seeking the relief of mandatory injunction amending the

plaint paragraph No.15(a) and (b).

4.

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared and filed the written statement. In the written

statement, it is contended that the plaintiff has to prove the

ownership with regard to Site No.35. It is also contended that

the plaintiff has fraudulently given false boundaries to Site No.35

and he has not produced the certified copy of the original plan of

layout. It is contended that site No.35 is bounded on the East

by societies vacant land; West by site No.34 belonging to the

defendant; North by Site No.37 and not Site No.36 as alleged

and South by Road. Thus, the plaintiff has fraudulently given

false boundaries and tried to play fraud with the Court by

4

identifying the property belonging to the defendant as site

No.35. It is also contended that the plaintiff has admitted in

paragraph No.12 of the plaint that site bearing No.34 belonging

to the defendant. The site No.34 is bounded on East by Site

No.35; West by Site No.38; North by Site No.36 and South by

Road. The documents produced by the defendant clearly

establishes the identity of site No.34. Thus, the plaintiff is guilty

of suppression of real facts. The defendant denied all other

averments made in the written statement. The defendant

contended that the real facts are that the defendant is the owner

in possession and enjoyment of site No.34 as admitted by

plaintiff. Earlier