IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1752 OF 2014 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

CHANDRAIAH GOWDA S/O VENKATE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS

1(a). H S PADMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRAIAH GOWDA, 2(b). SREEHARSHA T C, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH GOWDA, BOTH ARE R/AT SECOND PARALLEL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, SHIVAMOGGGA.

…APPELLANTS Digitally (BY SRI M SANDESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR signed by PROPOSED A1(a) AND A1(b))

PRAMILA G V AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT OF 1. S R LAKSHMINARAYANA SINGH, KARNATAKA S/O RAMA SINGH, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT JAYANAGARA

3^RD CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

SINCE DECEASED

2. SMT RADHA BAI, W/O LATE DHARMA SINGH, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT JAYANAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

3. S.D.ANANTHARAM SINGH, S/O LATE DHARMA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT JAYANAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

4. SHIVAMOGGA CITY MUNICIPALITY, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

5. SANDHYA, W/O KUBERU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU -560017.

6. SOWMYA THANUDI, D/O CHANDRAIAH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, 2^ND FLOOR, GRUHA LAKSHMI LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 017.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3, SRI ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R1 DECEASED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.9.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.97/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT 11.6.2009 IN O.S.143/2001 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

This second appeal is from a concurrent finding in a suit for mandatory injunction and also permanent injunction.

2. The suit is filed against City Municipality, Shivamogga. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction against the defendant/City Municipality, to restrain the City Municipality from granting the property to any person, who seeks grant of the land.

3. Though the phrase used is 'mandatory injunction', for all practical purposes, the suit is one for 'bare injunction'.

4. The plaintiffs essentially contended that they are the lawful owners of the property and in possession of the property and defendant/ City Municipality is proposing to grant the land in favour of a third party. However, the third party in whose favour the proposal is made for grant, is not made a party.

5. The defendant/City Municipality contested the suit. On contest, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and also in possession of the property and granted injunction as prayed for.

6. The defendant/City Municipality filed an appeal before First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court concurred the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

7. At the same time, applications at IA Nos. III and V filed by the defendant/City Municipality under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also dismissed.

8. First Appellate Court also found that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property and in possession of the property.

9. The defendant/City Municipality which claimed to be the owner of the suit schedule property did not file any appeal. However, the present appeal is filed by a third party in whose favour the property was proposed to be granted by the defendant/City Municipality.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant who is not a party before the Trial Court and First Appellate Court would submit that he had filed an application seeking grant of land and City Municipality had passed a resolution to grant the suit property to the appellant and upon coming to know about this resolution, passed by the defendant/City Municip