IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.788 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN: 1. MURALI S/O G. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

2. GIRI S/O G. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.1/9 FLOUR MILL, THIMMAIAH BADAVANE NAGADEVANAHALLI GOLLARAHATTI, NEAR RING ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 056.

…APPELLANTS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HI GH (BY SRI. KALLEGOWDA .S.K, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. H.B. LOKESH S/O M. BASAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO. 52/26, 1^ST MAIN ROAD MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH .P.H, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2022 PASSED IN OS No.4351/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the defendant Nos.3 and

4 assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.4351/2014, wherein the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff thereby restraining the defendant Nos.3 and 4 from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The defendants are in appeal.

2. For the sake of brevity, 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 a suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S.No.4351/2014, alleging unlawful interference by the defendants with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff traced his title to the original allottee, Aboobakkar Haji, and specifically pleaded that the suit property bearing Site No.245, corresponding to TMC Katha No.2431/245, measuring East–West 30 feet and North–South 40 feet, situated at Nagadevanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, was a site formed by the Jagajyothi House Building Co-operative Society.

4. According to the plaintiff, the land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 9 acres 26 guntas was initially proposed for acquisition by the BDA; however, pursuant to de-notification proceedings, Aboobakkar Haji, a member of the said Society, was allotted the suit site. It was pleaded that he paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- and obtained a registered sale deed dated 24.04.1993. The plaintiff further asserted that Aboobakkar Haji conveyed the property to K.G. Manjula under a registered sale deed dated 24.03.1994, who in turn sold the property to the present plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1999. On the strength of these documents, the plaintiff claimed lawful possession and alleged that the defendants, being total strangers to the property, were attempting to dispossess him, thereby necessitating the suit for injunction.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 died. Their children, defendant Nos.3 and 4, entered appearance and filed written statements. The defendants disputed the very foundation of the plaintiff’s title, contending that the alleged GPA, based on which the Housing Society claimed to have derived rights over the property originally held by their father (defendant No.1), was a concocted and fabricated document. It was contended that all subsequent transactions flowing from the disputed GPA were vitiated. The defendants further asserted that Junjamma, the mother of defendant No.1, was in exclusive possession of 30 guntas in Sy.No.7, which, according to them, was never the subject matter of any valid alienation. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was sought.

6. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and produced nine documents, mark