IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2011 (PAR/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. GOVINDARAJU S/O.LATE MUNISWAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560092.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENUGOPAL .M.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. VEENAMBA W/O SHRI. K.N. DAYANANDA SARASWATHI R/AT.NO.8, SUVARNA Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA CHUNCHAGHATTA VILLAGE Location: HIGH KONAKONTE POST COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 062.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.N. ARAKESWARA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA is FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2010 PASSED IN O.S.8307/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING 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 defendants directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2010 rendered in O.S.No.8307/2006 whereby plaintiff's suit seeking injunction simpliciter is decreed and defendant is restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.8307/2006 seeking the relief of permanent injunction, alleging that on 06.09.2006 the defendant, without any semblance of right, unlawfully attempted to encroach upon the suit schedule property by undertaking excavation work therein. It was specifically contended that the defendant’s acts were high-handed and amounted to interference with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The plaintiff asserts absolute ownership and possession over Site No.105 corresponding to House List Khatha No.361/105 and claims to be in settled possession as on the date of the suit.

4. On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement stoutly denying all material averments. By way of defence, it is contended that the property claimed by him forms part and parcel of Survey No.94/2. The defendant asserts ownership over Site No.2A carved out in Survey No.94/2 and maintains that the plaintiff’s alleged property is situated towards the northern side of his site. It is further pleaded that he and his brothers had secured conversion of the land for non-agricultural residential purpose pursuant to an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 04.01.1992 and thereafter formed sites. According to him, he retained Site Nos.1A, 2A, 3A and 4A of varying measurements and is in lawful possession thereof. He also claims that khathas have been issued by the competent local authority, namely the City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura, and that he has been regularly paying property taxes.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and both parties were afforded opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of the material on record, particularly the title deed produced by the plaintiff marked at Ex.P2, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing her title and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Holding that there was credible evidence of interference by the defendant, the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of Site No.105.

6. Assailing the judgment and decree, learned counsel for the defendant has reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and has taken this Court through the photographs marked at Exs.D13 and D14, as well as Ex.D8, along with the unapproved layout plan at Ex.D7. Placing reliance on