IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2169 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S ELEMENTS 5 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS A REG. PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. F 133, 7^TH CROSS MANYATHA RESIDENCY NAGAVARA BENGALURU - 560045.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI NARESH DANDAPAT AND SRI ASHFAQ RAUF

2. M/S INDUS VALLEY HOMES PVT LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 6/A, 2^ND FLOOR Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA KABRA EXCELSIOR, 7^TH MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK Location: HIGH KORAMANGALA COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560034.

REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M/S ELEMENTS 5 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI NARESH DANDAPAT AND SRI ASHFAQ RAUF …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR .R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NOW CALLED AS BBMP N R SQUARE, BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATYANAND .B.S, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO. 25347/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUCNTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2023 passed in O.S.No.25347/2019 whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking permanent injunction against the BBMP is rejected.

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 case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that plaintiff No.1 purchased Schedule ‘A’ property under a registered Sale Deed dated 07.10.2013. It is their specific assertion that the land in question had already been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose by virtue of an Official Memorandum dated 14.12.2009. The vendor of plaintiff No.1 is stated to have derived title under a registered Partition Deed. Plaintiff No.2 claims to have acquired Schedule ‘B’ property under a registered Sale Deed dated 18.06.2015 from his vendor, who in turn had purchased the same under a prior registered Sale Deed. The plaintiffs further contend that they have jointly purchased Schedule ‘C’ property under a registered Sale Deed dated 11.12.2015. On the strength of these registered conveyances, the plaintiffs assert lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

4. The present suit is instituted on the specific allegation that during the first week of 2018, officials of the defendant–authority, accompanied by men and machinery, allegedly attempted to interfere with and dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties without authority of law. The plaintiffs claim to have caused issuance of a legal notice dated 07.12.2018 calling upon the defendant not to interfere with their peaceful possession. It is further alleged that on 21.02.2019, the officials of the defendant once again threatened dispossession, thereby compelling the plaintiffs to institute the present suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction. 5. Upon service of summons, the defendant –

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, stoutly denying the plaint averments. The defendant contended that the suit is wholly misconceived and instituted only to thwart lawful action initiated against the plaintiffs, who, according to the defendant, have encroached upon an existing 20 feet Government road leading to Bellandur village and serving as an access road. It is specifically pleaded that the existence of the 20 feet road is reflected in official records and that the plaintiffs have suppressed this mate