IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2011 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI .A D/O LATE ARJUN NO.19, 4^TH CROSS ROAD AZAD NAGAR, BANGALORE-560018.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR K. SREEDHAR AND ASSOCIATES, FOR APPELLANT)

AND:

1. V. NAGESH S/O LATE VENUGOPAL PILLAI B.K.

AGE MAJOR C/O R. KANNAN, H.NO. 34/1

2^ND CROSS Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A AZAD NAGAR Location: HIGH BANGALORE-18.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. V. PRAKASH S/O LATE VENUGOPAL PILLAI B.K.

R/AT.NO.12, 1^ST MAIN AZAD NAGAR BANGALORE-18.

3. V. RAJESH S/O LATE B.K. VENKATA PILLAI AGE MAJOR R/AT.NO.12, 1^ST MAIN AZAD NAGAR BANGALORE-18. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENTS)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC. 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3382/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 6), DISMISSING THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFF THEREIN FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the decree passed on a counter claim raised by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in respect of Schedule B, C and D properties in the written statement.

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

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for bare injunction, asserting that the suit schedule property originally belonged to her grandfather, late Naik Kappanna @ Karupanna, and thereafter devolved upon her mother, Sharadamma @ Meenakshi, who was pleaded to be the sole daughter and legal heir. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was conversant only with the Tamil language. According to the plaint, Sharadamma had no issues and subsequently contracted another marriage with Arjuna, through whom the plaintiff was born to Netravathi. The plaintiff averred that her father Arjuna died on 25.05.1959 and that thereafter Sharadamma and Netravathi sustained themselves by engaging in beedi binding and milk vending, apart from Sharadamma receiving pensionary benefits. It was further alleged that Sharadamma, owing to advanced age, was hospitalized at K.C. General Hospital, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, where she ultimately died on 12.06.1999. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who are sons of one B.K. Venugopala Pillai and distant relatives, had temporarily resided in an adjacent house and later shifted to Azad Nagar. It was alleged that the defendants began harassing the plaintiff by demanding possession of a portion of the suit schedule property and, upon refusal, attempted to fabricate documents and change the khatha. Claiming interference with possession, the plaintiff issued notice to the Bangalore City Corporation and thereafter approached the Civil Court seeking a decree of perpetual injunction.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, stoutly denying the plaint averments. The defendants also set up a counter claim seeking declaration of title in respect of Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ properties, contending that defendant No.1 is the owner of Schedule ‘B’, defendant No.2 of Schedule ‘C’, and defendant No.3 of Schedule ‘D’, and sought recovery of possession thereof from the plaintiff. The defendants traced their title to a testamentary disposition and contended that Sharadamma, being the absolute owner of the properties, was looked after by Venugopala and, out of love and affection, executed a registered Will dated 22.05.1999 bequeathing Schedule ‘B’ to ‘D’ properties in their favour.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. Both parties led oral and documentary e