IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2011 (PAR/INJ)

BETWEEN:

. SMT. P.H. NAGAMANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI. A.S HANUMANTHA REDDY, R/A. NO. 2102, 13TH "B" MAIN, 19TH"D" CROSS, 3RD STAGE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 64.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE KARNATAKA SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE BOARD)

Digitally signed by PLATFORM ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, SHARADAVANI B Location: High BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - 04.

Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, ADVOCATE AND MS. B.P. RADHA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/O-41, RULE-1, R/W, SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED03.01.2011 PASSED IN O.S.4900/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.4900/2007 whereby the plaintiff’s suit for injunction simplicitor against the defendant-Slum board is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff’s site, which was part and parcel of 4 acres 8 guntas, was declared as excess land and then conveyed to the Slum board and that the plaintiff cannot assert possession over the site being part and parcel of the excess land.

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 contending that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 29.11.2004 executed in her favour by her vendor, Smt. Radha, wife of Shankar Narayan. It is specifically pleaded that the said vendor had been allotted the suit site by the Malleshwaram Tailoring Co-operative Society Ltd., and that a possession certificate dated 15.01.1984 was issued in her favour by the said Society. Placing reliance on the registered conveyance deed executed by her vendor and the possession certificate issued by the Co-operative Society, the plaintiff asserted that she stepped into the shoes of her vendor and has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Alleging interference at the hands of the defendant, the present suit in O.S.No.4900/2007 came to be instituted seeking protection of her possession.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendant–Slum Board entered appearance and filed its written statement, stoutly denying the plaint averments. While disputing the plaintiff’s title and possession, the defendant specifically pleaded that an extent of 4 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.17 had been declared as excess vacant land and acquired under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, “the Act”), and that the same stood vested with the Government. It was further contended that, pursuant to Government Order No.HUD- 108-MCS-1995 dated 31.05.1995, the said land was handed over to the defendant–Slum Board for the purpose of rehabilitating slum dwellers residing near the Football Stadium, Ashoknagar, Bengaluru. In that background, the defendant asserted that the erstwhile owner, having lost title over the land measuring 4 acres 8 guntas by virtue of statutory vesting, had no subsisting right, title or interest to enter into any arrangement with the said Society. Consequently, it was contended that the allotment letters issued by the Society and the subsequent alienations made by the alleged allottees did not confer any valid right or title, and the suit was therefore liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues for consideration. In order to establish her case regarding title