IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.103 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI T. KARIYAPPA

S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

R/AT NO.97, RACHENAHALLI,

ARABIC COLLEGE POST,

BENGALURU-560 045. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI P.V. DAMODAR

S/O P.R. VENKAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.124,

II CROSS, VARMA LAYOUT,

Digitally signed by BHUVANESHWARINAGAR,

MAHALAKSHMI B M BENGALURU-560 057. …RESPONDENT

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

(BY SRI RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96

OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16949/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE 73^RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT,

BENGALURU, DECREEING SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.16949/2006 on the file of LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) (‘trial Court’ for short), whereby the trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

Plaint averments

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and in settled possession of Site No.215, House No.172-1870/A, situated at Rachenahalli, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru (‘suit property’ for short), having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.09.1994. It is stated that the site forms part of the layout developed by the Post and Telecommunication Department Employees Co- operative Housing Society (‘Society’ for short), of which he is a member, and after purchase he has secured khata, paid taxes, obtained possession certificate and has been in peaceful possession since then.

3. The plaintiff contends that the defendant is a total stranger to the scheduled property, falsely claiming title over a portion of Sy.No.105/2 and attempted to trespass upon the suit property. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession, claiming continuous lawful possession.

The written statement averment

4. The defendant denies the plaintiff's title and possession and asserts that Site No.215 forms part of Sy.No.105/2, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, which originally belonged to Muniyamma and was conveyed under a continuous chain of registered sale deeds from 1953 until 1974, culminating in absolute ownership of the entire land by Smt. Puttamma, who subsequently conveyed 19 guntas to the defendant’s wife, Parvathamma, through a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2007. It is stated that neither the society nor his alleged GPA holder, Lokesh had any right, title or interest in Sy.No.105/2 and therefore the plaintiff's sale deed dated 24.09.1994 is void, hollow and non est.

5. It is stated that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession. That the layout plan does not disclose any supporting acquisition by the society, and that the plaintiff knowingly has filed the present suit for permanent injunction. The defendant, being the children of Parvathamma, have succeeded to her estate after her death in the year 2015.

6. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and marked documents at Ex.D1 to D12.

7. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiff sought only an injunction and therefore the scope of the suit did not require adjudication of title and restricted itself to examine the settled possession. The trial Court concluded that the plaintiff has been in settled possession since 1994 supported by sale deed, khata, BDA correspondence, tax receipts and possession certifi