1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.546 OF 2015 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI.H.BASAVARAJU

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

S/O HOMBAIAH

R/AT NO.75, 2^ND CROSS

2^ND MAIN ROAD

DEEPANAJALI NAGAR

MYSORE ROAD

BANGALORE - 560026.

2.

SMT.NAGARANTHNA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

W/O H.BASAVARAJU

R/AT NO.75, 2^ND CROSS

2^ND MAIN ROAD

DEEPANAJALI NAGAR

MYSORE ROAD

BANGALORE - 560026.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.M. R. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.RAJU S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SMT.JAYALAKSHMI S. GUPTA

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA GUPTA

R/AT NO.1201, 5^TH CROSS

5^TH MAIN, L.N.COLONY

YESHWANTHAPURA

BANGALORE - 560022.

2

2.

SRI.M.SHIVAKUMAR

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

S/O LATE M.S.MAHADEVAIAH

R/AT NO.109, H.V.R. LAYOUT

4^TH MAIN ROAD

MAGADI MAIN ROAD

BANGALORE - 79.

3.

SRI.G.LINGIAH

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

S/O LATE M.GANGAIAH

R/AT NO.2/1, 2^ND CROSS

2^ND MAIN, DEEPANJALI NAGAR

MYSORE ROAD

BANGALORE - 560026.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PARASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE - R1;

R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, SITTING AT

DHARWAD, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri.M.R.Rajagopal learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.Raju S. for appellants has appeared through video

3

conferencing. Sri.Raju S. learned counsel for appellants

and Sri.Parashuram R. Hattarakihal for respondent No.1

have appeared in person.

This is an appeal from the Court of XXXIX Additional

City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3.

The facts of the case are simply stated as

under:-

It is stated that plaintiff is the sole and absolute

owner of the property bearing site No.56 carved out of

survey No.14/6, situated at Deevatige Ramanahalli Village,

Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk now known as

Municipal No.56, B.M.P Ward No.41, PID No.41/28/56

situated at K.H.Ranganatha Layout, Gali Anjaneya Temple,

Bangalore measuring East to West 40 feet and North to

South 30 feet. The plaintiff acquired the said property

under a registered sale deed dated 24.05.1982 executed

4

by Binny Mills workers and other Labourers Co-Operative

Housing Society Ltd., Bangalore.

After the purchase of the property, the Plaintiff

approached the revenue authorities for effecting the

entries in her favor and after following necessary

formalities as required under the law, the then Bangalore

Mahanagara Palike collected the betterment charges and

other incidental charges in respect of the suit schedule

property and thereafter effected the entries in her name.

The plaintiff is paying the requisite tax to the authority

concerned. The plaintiff has not alienated or encumbered

the property and she is in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the same without anybody’s interference.

It is averred that defendants are not having any

right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.

The first defendant in collusion with others filed suit in

O.S.No.2960/2005 for the relief of specific performance of

contract against second and third defendants. Plaintiff

came to know about the suit and she filed an application to

5

come on record and the Court allowed the application and

permitted her to come on record as a party to the suit. As

things stood thus, defendants in collusion with each other

tried to interfere with plaintiff's peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit property. She approached the

jurisdictional police on 26.11.2008 for necessary protection

and to take necessary action against the defendants.

Contending that the defendants tried to interfere

with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedu