1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

R.F.A NO. 985/2020

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.R. RAJATH

S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

R/AT. NO.144, METRO MALLEABLE

MANUFACTURERS PVT LTD.,

NAYANDAHALLI VILLAGE

AZEEZ SAIT INDUSTRIAL TOWN,

BANGALORE-560 039. ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NATARAJA H.T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. FAROOQ ALI KHAN

S/O. MAHABOOB ALI KHAN

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/AT. NO.77, 2^ND CROSS,

SIDDARTHANAGAR

DR. T.C.M. ROYAN ROAD,

BANGALORE-560 053.

&RESPONDENT

(SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT

V/O DATED 26.10.2021)

THIS R.F.A IS FILED U/S 96(1) C.P.C. AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED IN

O.S.NO.25222/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL

2

CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, DECREEING

THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed today for Hearing on

Interlocutory Application, the same is taken up for final

disposal having regard to the facts and circumstance of

the case.

2.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the

appellant under Section 96(1) of C.P.C., against the

judgment and decree dated 12.12.2019 passed in

O.S.No.25222/2010 by the learned XXVI Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayohall, Bengaluru, (CCH-

20).

3.

In order to avoid confusion and over-lapping,

parties are addressed in accordance with their ranking

and status as held by them before the trial Court.

3

4.

The plaintiff has filed suit seeking for

injunction in respect of the schedule property. The crux

of the matter is that the defendant has constructed a

compound wall on the western side of suit schedule "B"

property and if he is successful in completing the very

purpose of vesting the rights of the plaintiff would be

frustrated.

5.

To avoid the wastage of the judicial time the

substance of the case is extracted from the certified

copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.25222/2010 as

under :-

"That, the plaintiff is the owner in

physical possession of the suit 'A' schedule

property bearing Site No.31 VP Katha Bo.45,

House List Nos.143 and 144, present municipal

No.52/31, situated at Nayandahalli Village,

Azeez Sait industrial Town, BBMP, measuring

East-West :27 feet and North-South : 50.09

feet, consisting of 1 sq. ACC sheet roofing shed

having bounded with west by suit 'B' schedule

6 feet road passage. According to the plaintiff

he has purchased the suit 'A' schedule property

under a Registered Sale deed dated 11.07.2006

4

from his vendor Mrs. Uzma Shireen. His

vendor has purchased the suit 'A' schedule

property from one M.Ramachandra through a

Registered sale deed dated 24.09.2003. In the

plaintiff's sale deed and his vendor's sale deed

6 feet passage on the western side is provided.

Plaintiff has described the said 6 feet passage

road immediately to the west of the suit 'A'

schedule property as suit 'B' schedule property.

On 04.02.2010 defendant with his henchmen

tried to put up construction of a compound in

the suit 'B' schedule property and caused

obstruction to user of the suit 'B' schedule

property

as

passage

to

access

plaintiff's

godown in the suit 'A' schedule property.

Hence, plaintiff has filed this suit."

6.

After the service of the suit summons, the

defendant appeared before the learned Trial Judge and

filed written statement. The substance of the written

statement is as under :-

"That

the

suit

of

plaintiff

is

not

maintainable or sustainable. Suit 'B' schedule

property along with other properties had been

leased to M/s. Lakshmi Malleballes Pvt. Ltd., for

a period of 40 years. Suit is filed against

wrong legal entity. Plaintiff after obtaining an

order of status quo has demolished the wall

which was existing on the suit 'B' schedule

proper