##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15232

RFA No. 654 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2025 (INJ-)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.VASEEM BANO,

W/O. P. M. IQBAL,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

2. SRI. NOOR MOHAMMED ARSHAD,

S/O.P. M. IQBAL,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

3. SMT. SHAISTA AKTHAR

W/O. NOOR MOHAMMED ARSHAD,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

4. SMT. SADIA SADAR,

W/O. SYED YOUSUFF ALI,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

5. SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFER WAIZ,

S/O.P. M. IQBAL,

Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

by CHANDANA

B M

Location: H igh ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.38/14,

Court of PARK VIEW APARTMENT, 2^ND PHASE,

Karnataka

KEMP ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,

BENGALURU – 560 005

REP. BY GPA HOLDER

SRI. P.M. IQBAL

S/O LATE S. ABDUL HAMEED

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

NO.38/14, PARK VIEW APARTMENT,

2^ND PHASE, KEMP ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,

BENGALURU – 560 005

…APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI. M. K. SHIVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15232

RFA No. 654 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

C. SAMPANGI

S/O.CHINNAVAN,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs

1. SMT.KRISHNAVENI,

W/O.LATE C.SAMPANGI,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

2. SRI. GNANVEL S.,

S/O. C. SAMPANGI,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

3. SRI. MARVEL S.,

S/O. C. SAMPANGI,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

4. SMT. SAVITHA S.,

D/O. C. SAMPANGI,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

5. SRI. AMARVEL S.,

S/O. C. SAMPANGI,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

6. MS. SABITA S.,

D/O. C. SAMPANGI,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

HOUSE LIST NO.1434/1454/3,

KADUGONDANAHALLI,

ARABIC COLLEGE POST,

BENGALURU – 560 045

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. H. RAMU, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI

RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

07.12.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.26643/2013 ON THE FILE OF XLIII

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH

NO.44), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15232

RFA No. 654 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON

13.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.26643/2013 is directed

against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.12.2024

passed by the XLIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore,

whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the

respondents – defendants for permanent injunction and other

reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was

dismissed by the trial court.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred

to their respective rankings before the trial court.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as

under:-

The appellants – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against

the respondents – defendants for permanent injunction and other

reliefs interalia contending that they are the absolute owners in

lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

immovable property bearing BBMP No.61/726/47, old Kanushmari

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15232

RFA No. 654 of 2025

HC-KAR

No.726, Now 61/726/47/1 measuring East – 36.25 ft, West – 77 ft,

North – 50+30 ft and South – 62.6 + 18 ft, in all measuring 5188

sq.ft situated at Nagavara Main Road, Kadugondanahalli

Gramathana, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It was

contended that the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule property

vide registered sale deed dated 29.05.2012, pursuant to which,

they applied for bifurcation of khata into their names by the BBMP

which bifurcated the khata of the entire property comprising of the

suit schedule property and the portion retained by the vendor by

name Syed Nizamuddin and assigned No.61/726/47/1 to the suit

schedule property. It was contended that the plaintiffs are in

lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property and since the defendants attempted to interfere with their

possession and enjoyment, plaintiffs filed the instant suit.

4. The defendants filed the written statement and contested

the suit disputing the denying the all