IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 862 OF 2009 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

MR K A NASRUDDIN S/O K.A.MOHAMMED AZAM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A NO.38/6, (OLD NO.38/2)

BAZAAR STREET CROSS, HAYATH STD FLOOR MILL, KBAR ROAD, NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 047.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI AHMED JAN SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS Digitally signed

1(a) SRI. CHAND PASHA by SUMA B N Location: H IGH S/O AHMED JAN COURT OF AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS KARNATAKA

1(b) SRI. FAIROZ PASHA S/O AHMED JAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

1(c) SRI. AFROZ PASHA S/O AHAMED JAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.38/2, BAZAAR STREET DILKUSH HOTEL, NEELASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 047.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A. SAMI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO C)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER LXI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7030/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ALSO DISMISSING AGAINST IA FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX, RULE

2A OF CPC.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.7030/2004 on the file of XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (for brevity 'Trial Court') by which, suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Subject matter of the suit is property bearing No.38/2, New No.38/6, situated at Bazaar Street, Neelasandra (in Sy.No.118, Civil Station) new Infantry Church Road, Bangalore, measuring East to West 15 feet and North to South 30 feet, totally measuring 450 sq. ft and bounded on;

East by : Abdul Gaffar Shaiab's land West by : Yaseen Saheb's land North by : Channel South by : V Muniyappa's land the southern side wall is about 30 feet with AC sheet roofing.

3. Case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 16.06.1983. Name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof and has been paying property tax. Suit property consists of three shops. Plaintiff is running businesses of STD booth and a Flour Mill in two of the shops and another shop has been let out to a tenant who is using the same to run a medical shop. Defendant is neighbour on the southern side of the suit schedule property. He is also running a business of hotel on the southern side of the suit schedule property. The defendant all of a sudden started to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by causing threat to damage the southern side of the wall of the plaintiff's shop measuring 30 feet. That there is sufficient passage on the southern side after southern side wall of the plaintiff. That the building existing in the suit schedule property was constructed about 20 years ago. That being unbearable of the illegal threats posed by the defendant, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.

4. Defendant in the written statement denying the plaint averments contended that originally plaintiff was a tenant in a portion of the property bearing No.38/2 under its owner Sri.Muniyappa. After the death of said Muniyappa, plaintiff became tenant under his legal representatives. At no point of time, either Muniyappa or his legal representatives have sold the property to the plaintiff. That originally two different portions of the property bearing No.38/2 were purchased by deceased Muniyappa under two different deeds of sale. He had purchased a portion measuring East to West 10 feet, North to South 30 feet in terms of a deed of sale dated 29.05.1972 in which the plaintiff was a tenant. Another portion of the s