IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1683 OF 2016 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI A.M. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO.48 & 49 MUNESHWAR BLOCK, 3^RD CROSS, AMRUTH NAGAR, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560092.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI T.V. NANJUNDA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O T.N. VENKATASWAMAPPA, Digitally signed by R/AT NO.46/2, G. BLOCK, MAHALAKSHMI B M SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560092.

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI BHANU PRASAD K., ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4955/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AND 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 preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2016 in O.S. No.4955/2009 on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit for permanent injunction came to be decreed restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Plaint averments

2. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner in possession of Site Nos.32 and 33, corner sites formed in Survey No.96 of Amrutha Halli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North, purchased under a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1993 executed by Sri D.M. Venkataramanappa through his GPA Sri M. Sriramulu and M.N. Narasimharaju. It is stated that the layout in which the suit sites are formed originates from the land bearing Survey Nos.96, 97/3, 98/1, measuring 3 acres 39 guntas.

After purchase, the plaintiff got all the revenue entries mutated in his name with the Village Panchayath, later by Narayanapura CMC and subsequently by the BBMP. That the plaintiff is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the sites for more than a decade, without interruptions and objections from anybody including the defendant. The defendant, who is the nephew of the petitioner’s vendor, began to interfere with the plaintiff's possession by asserting that an excess strip of land measuring 8 feet x 50 feet exists between Site No.34 and the plaintiff's site, and demanded that the plaintiff shift his boundary further north. The defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

Written Statement averments

3. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s purchase and about Site Nos.32 and 33 exist in Survey No.96 as contended by the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff’s documents are not genuine and the plaintiff has no title or possession over the suit property. It is stated that after the death of the defendant’s father, an oral partition took place on 02.06.1983 between his mother (as natural guardian) and his paternal uncle D.M.Venkataramanappa (vendor of the plaintiff), under which 01 acre 21 guntas in Survey No.97/3 fell to defendant’s share. His mother thereafter obtained conversion order on 22.12.1992 for converting Survey No.97/3 for non-agricultural use and subsequently, she executed a GPA in favour of Sri M. Sriramulu and Sri M.N. Narasimharaju (the same GPA holders of the plaintiff’s vendor) for 30 guntas, while the defendant and his mother retained 31 guntas. It is stated that out of 31 guntas in Survey No.97/3, the defendant claims to have formed several residential sites, including Site Nos.32, 33, 34, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49, and that these properties continue to remain in their possession. The defendant contended that the plaintiff is falsely claiming that the sui