IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.749 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI JANARDHANA MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE N. MARIYAPPA, NO.435/B, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI B.R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

N.B. GURUDEV MAJOR, S/O N.L. BYREGOWDA, NO.4, F.T.I. COLONY, Digitally signed by NEAR WATER TANK, MAHALAKSHMI B M NANDINI LAYOUT, Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560058.

COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA (BY SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5035/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING 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 preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2023 in OS No.5035/2016, on the file of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction came to be dismissed.

Plaint averments:

2. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of site No.33, Khata No.58 at Halgevaderahalli Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South measuring 40 x 60 feet, 2400 square feet. The property was originally purchased by P. J. Joseph in the year 1971, after his death, it devolved on his wife Thangamma, and thereafter on her daughter Smt. Nirmala John under a Will. The said Nirmala John executed a GPA in favour of B. T. Bhaskar, Dharmapala M. K. and V. Krishnamoorthy, who in turn sold site No. 33 to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 26.06.2000. It is averred that after purchase, Khatha was transferred in plaintiff's name and he has paid property taxes to BBMP and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. It is averred that on the northern side of the property, BBMP undertook road widening and some portion of his site was acquired for road. And the plaintiff formally relinquished 115 square metres to BBMP leaving with him about 1161 square feet). That the defendant having no manner of right, attempted to encroach from the eastern side and the plaintiff alleges illegal interference and apprehension of dispossession. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of site No.33.

Written statement averments

3. The defendant specifically took a plea that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts and that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. The defendant disputes the validity of the plaintiff’s documents. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is denied and contends that the plaintiff's claim of site No.33 is not supported by clear survey identification. It is specifically averred by the defendant that he is the owner of site No.26/1, Survey No. 290/2 (Old Survey No.57) measuring 45 feet x 81 feet (3,645 square feet) purchased under registered sale deed dated 17.06.2016 from the wife and daughter of Late H. Puttaswamy, that the RTC, conversion records and the survey documents show the defendant’s lawful title. The defendant asserts that his property is a separate and independent, carved out of Survey No.57 (re-numbered 290/1 and 290/2). Plaintiff's property, if any, is in Survey No.58. Hence, there is no abutment and no question of interference. It is averred that the plaintiff having lost his land in road widening, is allegedly trying to create overlapping claims over the defendant's site. Boundaries of the plaintiff’s property and those of the defendant’s property do not tally and that a false claim has been made by the plaintiff against the defendant that he is interfering and sought for dismis