Back
RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1589 OF 2023 (INJ)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1580 OF 2023 (INJ), REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1597 OF 2023 (INJ), REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1600 OF 2023 (INJ), REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1604 OF 2023 (INJ)
IN RFA No.1589/2023 BETWEEN:
NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI ALSO KOWN AS CHANABASASAGOUDA POLIS PATIL @
NINGANAGOWDA HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M S/O ADIVEPPAGOWDA HOSMANI, Location: HIGH RESIDING AT NO.50, COURT OF 1ST STAGE, POSTAL COLONY, KARNATAKA SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560050.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.15, ‘ARITE’, 1ST CROSS, 10 ‘A’ MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560038.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS AND:
1. PALESH KARMOKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O L.H. KARMOKAR, RESIDING AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AMCP LAYOUT, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560092. 2. P.C. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE P. CHANDRASEKESHAVAPA, RESIDING AT NO.106, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560010.
3. C.V. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O V.N. CHOWDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.148, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA SCHOOL, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMINAPURAM POST, BENGALURU-560086.
4. MRS. ZEENATHUUISA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O RAFIQUE AHMED, RESIDING AT NO.227, 14TH MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. DHANALAKSHMI Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 24/09/2025)
RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.407/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION TIME BARRED.
IN RFA NO.1580/2023 BETWEEN:
NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI ALSO KNOWN AS CHANABASANAGOWDA POLIS PATIL @
NINGANAGOWDA HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O ADIVEPPAGOWDA HOSMANI, R/AT NO.50, 1ST STAGE, POSTAL COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560050.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.15, ‘ARITE’, 1ST CROSS, 10 ‘A’ MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560038.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANAND KARMOKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE VIJAY KARMOKAR, R/AT NO.3/11, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AMCP LAYOUT, SAHAKARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560092.
2. P.C. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE P. CHANDRASEKESHAVAPA, R/AT NO.106, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS MANJUNATHNAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560010.
3. C.V. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O V.N. CHOWDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.148, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA SCHOOL, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMINAPURAM POST, BENGALURU-560086.
4. MRS. ZENATHUUISA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O RAFIQUE AHMED, R/AT NO.227, 14TH MAIN ROAD GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. DHANALAKSHMI Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 24/09/2025)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.405/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO.1597/2023 BETWEEN:
NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI ALSO KNOW AS CHANABASANAGOUDA POLIS PATIL @
NINGANAGOWDA HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O ADIVEPPAGOWDA HOSMANI, RESIDING AT NO.50, 1ST STAGE, RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS POST COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.15, ‘ARITE’, 1ST CROSS, 10 ‘A’ MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 038.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. A.M. MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O A.N. MAHADEVA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.3, SURYA RESIDENCY, 63 AND 44, BALAJI LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 097.
2. P.C. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE P. CHANDRASEKESHAVAPA, RESIDING AT NO.106, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHNAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010.
3. C.V. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O V.N. CHOWDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.148, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA SCHOOL, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMINAPURAM POST, BENGALURU-560 086.
4. MRS. ZEENATHUUISA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O RAFIQUE AHMED, RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS RESIDING AT NO.227, 14TH MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. DHANALAKSHMI Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 24/09/2025)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.404/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION TIME BARRED.
IN RFA NO.1600/2023 BETWEEN:
NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI ALSO KNOWN AS CHANABASANAGOUDA POLIS PATIL @
NINGANAGOWDA HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O ADIVEPPAGOWDA HOSMANI, RESIDING AT NO.50, 1ST STAGE POSTAL COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560050.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 15, ‘ARITE’, 1ST CROSS, 10 ‘A’ MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560038.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS AND:
1. S. SHIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O SOMBAIAH, RESIDING AT 99, 6TH ‘B’ CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, BENGALURU-560097.
2. P.C. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE P. CHANDRASEKESHAVAPA, RESIDING AT NO.106, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHNAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560010.
3. C.V. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O V.N. CHOWDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.148, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA SCHOOL, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMINAPURAM POST, BENGALURU-560086.
4. MRS. ZEENATHUUISA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O RAFIQUE AHMED, RESIDING AT NO.227
14TH MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. DHANALAKSHMI Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 24/09/2025)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
01.04.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.403/2018 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO.1604/2023 BETWEEN:
NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI ALSO KNOWN AS CHANABASANAGOUDA POLIS PATIL @
NINGANAGOWDA HOSMANI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O ADIVEPPAGOWDA HOSMANI, RESIDING AT NO.50, 1ST STAGE, POSTAL COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560050.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.15, ‘ARITE’, 1ST CROSS, 10 ‘A’ MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560038.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
11. BASANTHI RANI PAUL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O R.N. PAUL, RESIDING AT NO.76, 2ND CROSS, DINNUR AJIAPPA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU-560032.
22. P.C. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE P. CHNADRASEKESHAVAPA, RESIDING AT NO.106, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHNAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560010.
33. C.V. SRINATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O V.N. CHOWDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.148, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA SCHOOL, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIAPURAM POST, BENGALURU-560086.
44. MRS. ZEENATHUUISA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O RAFIQUE AHMED, RESIDING AT NO.227, 14TH MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. DHANALAKSHMI Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS H/S V/O/D 25/06/2024;
SRI S. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 24/09/2025)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.406/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA RFA No. 1597 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
ORAL JUDGMENT
All these regular first appeals arise from the judgments and decrees dated 01.04.2023 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short) in the following original suits.
a. O.S. No.403/2018 – site No.702
b. O.S. No.404/2018 – site No.697
c. O.S. No.405/2018 - Site No.695,
d. O.S. No.406/2018 - Site No.713
e. O.S. No.407/2018 - Site No.694 carved out of Sy. No.11 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
2. In each of the above suits, the plaintiffs had sought a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession over their respective sites carved out in Survey No.11, which were allotted by the National Technological Institutions Housing Cooperative Society Ltd (‘NTI Society’ for short)pursuant to the acquisition notification issued between 1985 and 1991. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed all the suits for bare injunction holding that the plaintiff has proved his lawful possession of the suit schedule Site Nos.694, 695, 697, 702 and 713. The defendants, particularly Ningana Gowda Hosamani, had failed to establish valid title after the acquisition of Survey No.11 by the Government for NTI Society. The alleged interference by the defendants was found to be established.
3. The Counterclaim filed by defendant No.4 (Zeenathuuisa) in Survey No.222 and Survey No.10/4 was rejected for want of evidence of interference by plaintiff. The trial Court in all the five suits permanently restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the defendant-Ningana Gowda Hosmani has preferred the present regular first appeals.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela on behalf of Smt. Dhanalakshmi .Y, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would urge the following grounds:
i. That the appellant is a lawful owner in possession of Survey No.11 by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983, the alleged acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Land Acquisition Act’ for short) and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘ULC Act’ for short) are riddled with inconsistencies. The parallel proceedings and a different statute created a situation, where two separate layouts were claimed, one by the appellant and another by the NTI Society. It is submitted that mere issuance of acquisition notification is not sufficient, the crucial requirement is proof of actual possession being taken over and handed over to the beneficiary society and in the present case, there is no material on record to show when and in what manner, possession of the acquired land was taken by the Government and subsequently handed over to NTI Society. It is submitted that reliance on possession certificate and internal documents of NTI society is insufficient unless corroborated by official records of taking possession. It is further submitted that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the request for appointment of a Court Commissioner and the said order rejecting Commissioner’s appointment is assailable in the present appeals, as such rejection deprived the defendants of an opportunity to establish factual aspects of possession on ground. It is contended that the trial Court failed to consider the factual matrix regarding,
a. Whether possession was actually taken by the Government;
b. Whether such possession was legally handed over to NTI Society;
c. Whether the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) or other statutory authorities, in subsequent proceedings, ever confirmed that NTI society was in possession of the land;
d. It is argued that the documents placed by the plaintiff only establish a paper transaction and not actual possession.
ii. It is averred that the primary question for consideration in appeal is:
‘Whethe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
