IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. K. SUMATHI W/O SRI. R. MURALI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2. SRI. R. MURALI S/O LATE RAMANATHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

3(a) SMT. K. SULOCHANA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs SRI. K. SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE KALIYAPERUMAL R/A NO.25, KOTHANUR NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE DR. SHIVARAMA KARANATH NAGAR BANGALORE-560 077 ALONG WITH 1^ST APPELLANT K. SUMATHI SL.NO. 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT PORTION OF PREMISES NO.82, ITI LAYOUT, 1^ST MAIN ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BANGALORE-560 046.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. M.B. KAMBANNA S/O YARAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.97, M.R.S PALYA, NANDIDURG ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BANGALORE-560046.

2. SRI. K. JOHN RAVISHANKAR SINCE DEAD NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

3. SMT. NAGAPUSHAM W/O LATE R.M. SATHYARAJ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 4. SRI. PURSHOTHAM S/O LATE R.M. SATHYARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.7, 145-B CROSS CHINNAPPA GARDEN BANGALORE-560 010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J. PRABAKAR, SRI. M.B. SHESHAGIRI & SRI. D. MURUGAN, ADVOCATES FOR R1;

V/O DATED 03.07.2013, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH;

V/O DATED 22.08.2013, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2012 IN O.S.No.1487/2005, PASSED BY V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.01.2026, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V JUDGMENT Captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs who are assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.1487/2005 wherein the trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a declaration to set aside the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.1 and to further declare the said sale deed as void, null and not binding on their rights. Consequentially, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they are the absolute owners of a portion of the suit schedule property, namely portions marked as 'EFDGE', on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2004 executed in their favour by defendant No.2. A further consequential relief of perpetual injunction was sought restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiffs’ alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

4. The plaintiffs trace their title through defendant No.2, who, according to them, is the son-in-law of one late L. Manikam. It is their specific case that L. Manikam died on 18.10.1996, leaving behind his daughter, Nirmala Nitya Kumari, and his son-in-law, defendant No.2, as his legal heirs. It is further pleaded that Nirmala Nitya Kumari died on 06.03.1997 and, thereafter, defendant No.2, being the sole surviving heir, succeeded to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs contend that defendant No.2 got his name mutated in respect of the suit schedule property and, being the absolute owner, conveyed the same in favour of plaintiffs under the registered sale deed dated

11.02.2004.

5. The plaintiffs have further averred, particularly in paragraph 3 of the plaint, that defendant No.1 attempted to interfere with their possession, which compelled them to file a suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S. No.2556/2004. By furnishing the family tree of their vendor, defendant No.2, the plaintiffs assert absolute title to the entire suit schedule property. On that premise, they have challenged the sale deed dated 15.12.2003 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.1, contending that defendants 3