IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

SMT P PRABHAVATHI W/O SRI P.V. PRASAD AGED ABOUT 45 YRS R/AT.B-5/6, DRIO COMPLEX C.V. RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 093 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. E. RAJAGOPALA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI G S PRASAD S/O SRI SHIVALINGA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT.NO.28, 3^RD CROSS Digitally MALLESWARAM signed by SUMA B N BANGALORE - 560 003 Location:

HIGH …RESPONDENT COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN O.S.17061/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.17061/2006 on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, by which the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction, has been decreed.

2. Subject matter of the suit is Site No.43 House List No.1250, situated at Thanisandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 45 feet (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property') and bounded on the:

East by : Site No.42 West by : Site No.44 North by : Road South by : Jayaramappa's Property.

3. Plaintiff filed above suit contending inter alia that he had purchased suit schedule property from its previous owner Smt.Kanthamma and her son B.Ramesh in terms of deed of sale deed dated 20.09.2006. His name was mutated in the revenue records of the concerned Panchayath office. He has paid the property tax and thus, has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as owner thereafter. Originally the entire land was belonging to Bachanna, who is the husband of said Kanthamma, who had formed sites on the said property. Site No.43 is one of the sites purchased by the plaintiff. Site No.44 situated on the western side of the property was purchased by the defendant from the very same vendor Kanthanma in terms of deed of sale on 25.02.2002. Just before filing of the suit, when the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property, he found that the defendant had trespassed over a portion of property belonging to the plaintiff and had unauthorisedly put up construction over 1½ square of the suit schedule property.

The defendant having no right over the suit schedule property has encroached upon the same, constraining the plaintiff to file the suit.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and it is also denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Allegation of defendant encroaching upon 1½ square of the suit schedule property belonged to plaintiff is also specifically denied. However, defendant has admitted that she had purchased Site No.44 from the very same vendor Kanthamma. It is contended that defendant has put up construction of a residential building over the property and has also obtained electricity connection. That the BDA had issued notices proposing to acquire the lands including the site purchased by the defendant, defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.7219/2006 before City Civil Judge, CCH No.21, Bangalore, which was decreed. Thus, she has been in possession of the property, without encroaching upon any portion of suit schedule property. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit properties on the date of the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant trespassed and put up unauthorise