IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1852 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.P.KISHORE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SON OF LATE KOKARDAS TARACHAND RESIDING AT NO.3, MOTHI APARTMENTS KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI.PRAKASH K AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON OF KISHORE. P RESIDING AT NO.3, MOTHI APARTMENTS KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF …APPELLANTS KARNATAKA (BY SRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.2, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018

2. THE MANAGER THE GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.2, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SANDESH T B, ADVOCATE FOR R.1;

R.2 -SERVED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3734/2018 ON THE FILE OF LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN 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 unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the dismissal decree dated 22.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.3734/2018 instituted by the plaintiffs seeking injunction simplicitor. The said judgment is assailed in the captioned appeal.

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

3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiffs, asserting absolute ownership over the suit schedule property by virtue of a Sale Certificate, instituted a suit for bare injunction alleging unlawful interference by the defendants with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement. While the suit was contested on certain aspects, the defendants unequivocally admitted that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Cellar Floor bearing Municipal Nos.5 and 5/1, having a super built-up area of 3,424 square feet out of 4,104.48 square feet comprised in property Nos.1/8 and 8/1 situated at S.C. Road (Natarathna Gubbi Veeranna Road), Division No.22, Bangalore, together with an undivided right, title and interest of 500 square feet in land measuring East to West 81 feet 6 inches and North to South 50 feet 3 inches.

5. In light of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and the parties were relegated to trial.

6. To substantiate their title as well as possession as on the date of institution of the suit, the plaintiffs relied upon the Sale Certificate marked at Ex.P.1. They further produced tax paid receipts, electricity bills and photographs to demonstrate continuous and lawful possession of the property.

7. On the other hand, the defendants examined one witness as D.W.1 and produced two photographs marked at Exs.D.1 and D.2. The principal defence urged by the defendants was not a denial of the plaintiffs’ title to the cellar portion, but a contention that while the Sale Certificate relates to the cellar floor, the plaint schedule described the property as a ground floor portion. To that limited extent, the defendants raised a contest.

8. The Trial Court, placing reliance on the discrepancy between the schedule described in the plaint and the property described in the Sale Certificate at Ex.P.1, held that the identity of the property was not established and, on that ground, proceeded to dismiss the suit.

9. At the stage of final hearing of the appeal, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendants highlighting the discrepancy, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought leave to file an application for amendment of the plaint schedule so as to bring it in conformity with the descrip