IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2026 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. M. GOPAL S/O D.M.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.E-74, 6^TH CROSS SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE JALAHALLI WEST AND POST BENGALURU-560 015.

2. SRI. MANJUNATH .R S/O SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. E-73, 6^TH CROSS SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE JALAHALLI WEST AND POST BENGALURU-560 015.

…APPELLANTS Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH (BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. SMT. M. NAGALAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.06, SRI. LAKSHMI PRASADAM RENUKAMBA TEMPLE ROAD DODDABOMMASANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 097.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR .K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE

1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.969/2024 ON THE FILE OF XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 rendered in O.S.No.969/2024, whereby plaintiff's suit seeking injunction simpliciter is decreed and defendants are restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

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

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of vacant Site No.36, forming part of Sridevi Layout, situated at Medarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

4. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Ramaiah, who was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.10. According to the plaintiff, Ramaiah formed a residential layout in the said survey number and carved out several sites, which were sold to different purchasers under registered sale deeds. Insofar as the suit schedule site is concerned, it is contended that Ramaiah executed a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1999 in favour of Smt. C.Savithri. Pursuant to the said conveyance, Savithri is stated to have secured mutation of her name in the records of Abbigere Grama Panchayat and to have paid property taxes.

5. It is further pleaded that Smt. Savithri, acting through her duly constituted General Power of Attorney holder, executed a registered sale deed dated 03.07.2006 in favour of Gangamma, wife of Munivenkatappa. Subsequently, in the year 2007, Medarahalli Village came within the jurisdictional limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) pursuant to a Gazette notification. Consequent thereto, BBMP is said to have issued a khata extract in the name of Gangamma and to have collected property taxes from her in respect of the suit property.

6. The plaintiff further asserts that Gangamma executed a registered gift deed dated 12.09.2018 in her favour, thereby conveying the suit schedule property and delivering possession. On the strength of the said gift deed, the plaintiff claims to have stepped into the shoes of her donor and to have been put in lawful and exclusive possession of the suit property. It is her categorical assertion that she, along with her mother, has been regularly paying property taxes and that she is in peaceful enjoyment of the property as its absolute owner.

7. According to the plaintiff, on 18.01.2024, the defendants, without any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, attempted to interfere with her possession and threatened to dispossess her forcibly. She contends t