IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.832 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O LATE SRI ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083.

2. SRI. MADESHA S/O SRI SEETHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083.

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M

3. SRI MAHADEVA Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O LATE SRI SEETHAPPA, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI MADAPPA S/O LATE SRI ANNAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.M. VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25795/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 73RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, UNIT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023 passed by the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) (‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S. No.25795/2019, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of Site Nos.63 and 64, forming a part of Survey Nos.58 and 69 of Kowdenahalli, YerrayyanapalyA Dakhle, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (‘suit property’ for short) was decreed.

2. Plaint averments:

i. Suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property.

ii. Suit property was originally purchased by Annayappa (plaintiff’s father) on 24.11.1966. After the death of Annayappa, the plaintiff and his brother Gopalappa inherited the suit property. Gopalappa’s legal heirs executed a registered relinquishment deed dated

02.07.2019 in favour of the plaintiff.

iii. The plaintiff claims exclusive ownership and possession, supported by Katha, tax receipts, encumbrance certificate and further states that a shed has been built on the sites.

iv. The defendants, who are the cousins of the plaintiff, trespassed on 13.06.2019 to demolish the structure. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

3. Written statement averments:

i. The defendants admit the title of Chinnappa under the sale deed dated 26.06.1965, however, dispute the plaintiff's claim of exclusive title and specifically assert that the sale deed dated 24.11.1966 was jointly in the name of Annayappa and Seethappa (defendant’s father).

ii. That there was an oral partition and Annayappa retained Site No.63 (East) and Seethappa retained Site No.64 (West). Seethappa built a house in Site No.64 in 1976, got electricity connection in the year 1989, held katha and tax records.

iii. After the death of Seethappa, partition suit was filed in O.S. No.16140/2006, which ended in compromise and Site No.64 was allotted to defendant No.1 (Radhamma).

iv. The defendants claim that the plaintiff trespassed in their property in June 2019 leading to a police complaint.

v. The claim of the plaintiff that he is in possession was denied.

4. The trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, was of the opinion that the sale deed dated 24.11.1966-Ex.P.1, defendant's father's name (Seethappa) appears only in hand written script on the typed written document and no thumb impression or signature of Seethappa in the Registrar's records. The Court holds doubt on the defendants’ claim of joint ownershi