IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O LATE SEENAPPA @ CHINAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO 130, MARUTHINAGAR KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD SAHAKARANAGAR (P) BENGALURU-560 092.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGESHA .B.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. SAMPANGIRAMA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO 185, MARUTHINAGAR KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A SAHAKARANAGAR POST Location: HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU-560 092.

KARNATAKA

2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER PROPERTY NO. 3 DEVANGA SAMAJA ROAD SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 002.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. P. ANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;

SRI. BATHE GOWDA .K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.25416/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 25416/2016 wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter is dismissed with costs.

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 case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.25416/2016 seeking the relief of permanent injunction simpliciter. It was her specific case that she is the absolute owner of the residential property bearing No.130, Khata No.48/262/433, situated at Maruthinagar, Kodigehalli Main Road, Sahakaranagar. Tracing her title through the Village Panchayat, the plaintiff asserted that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The grievance projected in the plaint is that defendant No.1, who owns the adjoining property on the western side of the suit schedule ‘A’ property, has commenced construction without leaving the mandatory setback. It was further pleaded that there exists a common pathway between the properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and that despite lodging complaints before defendant No.2–Authority regarding the alleged unauthorized construction, no action was taken, which compelled the plaintiff to institute the present suit.

4. Defendant No.1, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement vehemently denying the allegations of encroachment and interference. Defendant No.1 not only disputed the existence of any common pathway or setback, but also seriously questioned the very title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It was specifically contended that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in lawful possession of the suit property and, therefore, is not entitled to the relief of injunction.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, which were subsequently reframed on 23.03.2021. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce cogent title documents indicating the actual measurements and extent of the property allegedly owned by her. The Trial Court, on examination of Exs.P1 to P18, recorded a categorical finding that the property does not stand in the name of the plaintiff and that the revenue records disclose one T. Chinnaiah as the owner of the property. The Court further observed that, in the absence of specific measurements and credible title documents, even the Commissioner’s report did not advance the plaintiff’s case. Consequently, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the existe