Failure to prove interference in ownership claim results in dismissal of injunction suit; statutory remedies must be exhausted before civil intervention.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2025 in O.S.No.6425/2021 on the file of the V Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). By the said judgment, the Trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. 2. The brief facts are as under:

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents and representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule ‘A’ property or from causing any hindrance in the use of Schedule ‘B’

property. Schedule ‘A’ property is described as under:

SCHEDULE-A All that piece and parcel of property bearing Site No.1, measuring East to West 60 Feet towards North 37 Feet and towards South 39 Feet, in all measuring 2280 Square Feet, situated at IEHCS Layout, Vidyaranyapura Ward No.9, BBMP, Bengaluru, and bounded on the EAST : by Private land WEST : by Site No.2 NORTH : by Road SOUTH : by Site No.27 Schedule ‘B’ property is described as under:

SCHEDULE-B All that piece and parcel of 30 Feet Road formed by the IEHCS Society in Survey Nos.15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Narasipura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, now Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru District and bounded on the :

EAST : by Private land WEST : by Road NORTH : by Site No.112 SOUTH : by Schedule-A Property

3. Plaintiffs claim ownership of schedule ‘A’

property through a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2021.

They allege that the defendant-Society attempted to form a site on the road (schedule ‘B’ property) contrary to the BDA approved plan, thereby obstructing their right of ingress and egress.

4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments. The defendant contended that schedule ‘B’ property is a road meant for residents and no site formation was carried out. Further, that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to seek injunction.

5. Before the Trial Court, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P11.

The defendant did not lead any evidence.

6. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, observed that plaintiffs proved possession over schedule ‘A’ property. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant was reducing 30 ft road (schedule ‘B’ property) by forming a site (15 x 50 ft). However, there was no documentary proof of actual interference. PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that no site had been formed, no complaint had been filed with BDA /

BBMP and plaintiffs failed to prove any interference.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent-Society cannot claim ownership on road or civic amenity areas. The respondent-Society, with an intention to cause hindrance to the plaintiffs, has carved out a site on the northern side of the Schedule ‘A’ property, which aspect has been totally overlooked by the Trial Court.

8. The point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs?"

9. On careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence and findings of the Trial Court, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The following reasons fortify the dismissal of the suit:

i. The plaintiffs case hinges on mere apprehension that the defendant intends to form a site on the schedule ‘B’ road. Except for the production of layout plans, no cogent evidence was adduced to demonstrate actual interference. The plaintiffs have neither complaints to statutory authorities, nor any official communication indicating encroachment. Mere apprehension without substantiation cannot be the basis for granting a decr