IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2798 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. ADILAKSHMI WIFE OF SRI KUPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.60, 2^ND FLOOR

7^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN SRIRAMANAGARA, ITTAMADU BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 060.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. SHIVA KUMAR S/O SRI RAJE URS Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH RESIDING AT NO.2661 COURT OF KARNATAKA 5^TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 078.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N.N. RAJ URS, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.2754/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.2754/2019 who instituted the suit for injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property described as Site No.28.

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

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiff claims to be absolute owner of site No.28 formed in a layout carved out by one Krishnappa. Plaintiff's contention is that Krishnappa originally owned larger extent of land and formed a layout in 1998 as per Ex.15. Under Ex.P16 dated 30.6.2004, Krishnappa sold 11 sites to Munirajappa. Plaintiff in turn purchased site No.28 from Munirajappa under registered sale deed dated 6.2.2006 evidenced at Ex.P2. Plaintiff based on the title documents asserts that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Reliance is also placed on revenue records and tax paid receipts and construction of compound wall around the property. Plaintiff has also stated that she mortgaged the property with India Infoline Housing Finance Limited by depositing title deeds on 10.5.2018. Present suit is filed alleging that on 6.3.2019, defendant trespassed and claimed right over the suit schedule property.

4. Per contra, defendant upon receipt of summons entered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant however, asserted title based on registered sale deed dated 10.3.2008. Defendant asserts that he has purchased site No.47 from Krishnappa. According to defendant the land bearing Survey No.69 was allotted to Krishnappa under registered partition deed dated

19.12.2003 and thereafter Krishnappa obtained approved layout on 15.10.2004 and defendant has purchased Site No.47. The primary defence of the defendant is that Site No.28 and 47 are not adjacent and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Trial Court based on rival pleadings formulated issues. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 in support of their claim led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court while answering Issue No.1 though held that documents adduced by plaintiff indicate plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property, in view of conflicting claims by plaintiff and defendant, suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. It is in this backdrop, trial Court held that it is not possible to decide as to who is in actual possession and proceeded to dismiss the suit.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant. This Court has independently perused the pleadings and carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties.

7. Having heard the learned counsel, the following points would arise for consideration:

"(i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that th