IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM RFA NO. 712 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. N. JAGADISH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

1(A) SMT. PREMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O LATE NO. JAGADISH

1(B) SMT. PRATHIMA .J AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS W/O SACHIN D/O LATE N. JAGADISH

1(C) SMT. RESHMA .J AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O LATE NO. JAGADISH

1(D) SRI. NAVEEN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS S/O LATE N. JAGADISH ALL ARE R/AT NO.231, 5^TH MAIN

1^ST CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT BANGALORE NORTH BENGALURU-560 064.

2. SRI. KRISHNA S. TAVILDAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE S.K.TAVILDAR R/AT NO. 412, 2^ND CORSS

5^TH CROSS, KENGERI STAELLITE TOWN BANGALORE-560 060.

[AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.03.2021]

...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A-D) AND A2)

AND:

1 . SRI. K.A. SHASHIDHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O K.V. ASHWATHANARAYANA RESIDING AT NO. 666 R.S.R.S ROAD, BANGARPET-563114.

2 . SMT. VATSALA NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE K. NATARAJAN RESIDING AT NO.65 "ANANTHA NILAYA", AGB LAYOUT II STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560086.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C-R1;

V/O DATED 24.02.2011 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S. No. 2931/2008 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND POSSESSION.

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.01.2026, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful defendants 1 and 3 questioning the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010 passed in O.S.No.2931/2008 wherein the plaintiff's suit for declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction and possession is decreed.

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.2931/2008 seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of Site No.6 bearing Khata No.58/1 and for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff asserted that he acquired valid title and lawful possession over the suit schedule property pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006 executed in his favour by Smt. Chennamma. It was pleaded that Site No.6 is a revenue site carved out of agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1 and that the second defendant was the absolute owner of the said agricultural land, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 09.08.2001.

4. The plaintiff’s case, as pleaded, is that the second defendant formed several residential sites in Survey No.58/1 and, as early as in the year 2003, sold Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma under a registered sale deed. The said Chennamma, having thus acquired valid title, subsequently conveyed Site No.6 in favour of the present plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. On the strength of the said conveyance, the plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. It was further pleaded that on 25.03.2008, the plaintiff was informed by a neighbour, one Lokesh, that the first defendant along with his family members had attempted to perform Bhoomi Puja in respect of the suit site. On enquiry conducted on 26.03.2008, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant was claiming right over the suit site on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 05.12.2005 executed by the third defendant in his favour. The plaintiff therefore contended that the third defendant had no right, title or interest to convey Site No.6, inasmuch as the original owner, namely the second defendant, had already alienated Site No.6 in favour of Chennamma much prior to the alleged sale in favour of the third defendant. On these grounds, the plainti