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. 271 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. C.P. UMASHANKAR S/O LATE C. PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 21, III 'B' CROSS LALBAHADUR NAGAR, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed SRI. HARISH P.C by SHARADAVANI S/O LATE C.P. CHANDRASEKARA REDDY B Location: High AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS Court of Karnataka RESIDING AT NO. 3/1, SUBBAIAH REDDY ROAD HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.26329/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYO HALL, 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 defendant directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022 rendered in O.S.No.26329/2017.

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

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction simplicitor in O.S.No.26329/2017. The plaintiff, tracing his title and possession under a release deed dated 23.11.2017 executed by his mother and his sister, asserts that he is in physical possession of the suit schedule property and further that this property was acquired by way of a confirmation deed dated 10.05.2017. The plaintiff asserted that the property was originally owned by Mr.Papaiah Reddy, the grandfather of the plaintiff, who released the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff also contended that his grandfather Papaiah Reddy instituted a suit in O.S.No.903/2006 seeking cancellation of the release deed dated 15.12.1997. The plaintiff asserted that the suit filed by his grandfather was dismissed. The present suit is filed alleging that the defendant for the past 4 months was trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

4. Upon service of summons, the sole defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement stoutly disputing the plaintiff’s title as well as alleged possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant set up a rival chain of title contending that one Chinna Reddy was the absolute owner of the property, having acquired the same under two registered sale deeds dated 28.02.1949 and 02.06.1949. It was further pleaded that upon the demise of Chinna Reddy, his son C. Papaiah Reddy and daughter Smt. Narayanamma succeeded to the estate, and the revenue records were mutated in their names.

5. The defendant further asserted that a family partition was effected on 23.02.2008, and under the said partition, the suit schedule property—described therein as ‘Schedule B’ property—fell to the share of C. Papaiah Reddy. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed that Papaiah Reddy, after having been allotted Schedule B property, executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff’s father. The defendant specifically denied the said claim and contended that the plaintiff has no semblance of right, title, or interest over Schedule B property, which is now described as the suit schedule property. The defendant also disputed the plaintiff’s alleged possession and consequently sought dismissal of the suit.

6. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced fourteen documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and relied upon two documents marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.

7. The learned Trial Judge, upon an elaborate appraisal of the pleadings and evidence on reco