IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM RFA NO. 190 OF 2010 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1 . KASTURI BHADAVANE KSHEMABIVRIDDHI SANGH (R)

NO.368, 6^TH CROSS, KASTHURI BHADAVANE RAJAGOPALANAGARA, PEENYA II STAGE BANGALORE-560 058 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT RAMEGOWDA C.M.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. H. SRINIVASAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE HESARUGHATTA VILLAGE BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

2 . SRI. N. NARAYANASWAMY S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS GORGHONTE PALYA JHARKABHANDE KAVAL YELAHANAKA HOBLI BANGLAORE NORTH TALUK

3 . BRUHUT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2;

SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2009 IN O.S. NO. 5030/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.01.2026, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.5030/2006 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the use of suit road come to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted the suit in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the use of the east–west road described in the plaint schedule. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that defendants No.1 and 2 had formed a residential layout in the subject land and, having developed the same, had sold all the sites therein. According to the plaintiff, the roads formed in the said layout constitute the only means of access for the residents, and despite having alienated all the sites, defendants No.1 and 2 were attempting to obstruct the use of the existing east–west road. Hence, the suit.

4. On service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, stoutly denying all the averments made in the plaint and contesting the suit on all available grounds.

5. The Trial Court, after framing the issues and affording opportunity to the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence, answered the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has taken this Court through the order sheets dated 01.08.2013 and 08.08.2013 to contend that the Trial Court had appointed a Court Commissioner on two occasions. Referring to the additional material now placed before this Court, he submits that the existence of an east–west road running between Sites Nos.46, 47, 58 and 59 stands clearly established through local inspection. Placing reliance on the commissioner’s report, which has now become part of the record, learned counsel would contend that the dismissal of the suit is unsustainable.

He would further submit that the evidence on record demonstrates that defendants No.1 and 2 have sold all the sites formed in the layout and have not retained any portion thereof. In such circumstances, the site owners are entitled to use the existing east–west road, and the Trial Court erred in non-suiting the plaintiff.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendants No.1 and 2 has seriously opposed the appeal. He would contend that the suit, having been instituted in a representative capac