##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4952

RFA No. 927 of 2010

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.927 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI S.A.KHALIQ AHMED

S/O LATE SHAIK AHMED,

AGED 48 YEARS,

R/AT: NO.436/1-3, VIVEKNAGAR LAYOUT,

4^TH CROSS, BANGALORE – 560 047.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI G.V.SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI PILLAMARI

S/O LATE POOJAPPA,

AGED 56 YEARS,

2. SMT.AKKIYAMMA

W/O PILLAMARI,

Digitally signed

by AGED 47 YEARS,

MARKONAHALLI

RAMU PRIY A

Location: HIGH 3. SMT P. CHAYA

COURT OF

KARNATAKA D/O PILLAMARI,

AGED 31 YEARS,

4. SRI P.RAVI

S/O PILLAMARI,

AGED 29 YEARS,

5. SRI P. SURESH

S/O PILLAMARI,

AGED 27 YEARS,

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4952

RFA No. 927 of 2010

HC-KAR

NOS.1 TO 5 ARE

R/AT: 316/1, SARYIPALYA,

NOW CALLED VIDYASAGARNAGAR,

FORMELY CALLED THANISANDRA,

BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE – 560 043.

6. SRI H.CHANDRAHASA

S/O HANUMANTHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

7. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA

W/O H.CHANDRAHASA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

NOS. 6 AND 7 R/AT NAGAWARA VILLAGE,

ARABIC COLLEGE POST

BANGALORE EAST TALUQ

BANGALORE – 560 043.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.M.JAGANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7;

V/O DATED 28.01.2026 R1 TO R5 DISMISSED AS NOT

PRESSED)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

96 READ WITH ORDER 41 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2010 PASSED BY THE

28^TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN DISMISSING

O.S.NO.16255/2004 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PLAINT

AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4952

RFA No. 927 of 2010

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 26.02.2010 passed by the XXVIII Addl. City

Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.16255/2004.

2. When this appeal was taken up for final

hearing, a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3

of CPC is filed. The relevant terms of which are extracted

as below:

“APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3

READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908.

The Appellant and Respondent Nos.6 and

7 submit as follows:-

1. That the Plaintiff / Appellant herein had filed a

suit in O.S.No.16255/2004 before the City Civil

Judge, at Mayo Hall, Bangalore, against the

Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 / Respondent Nos.1 to 7

herein for the relief of Declaration and

Permanent Injunction and such other reliefs.

2. The Plaintiff / Appellant herein is claiming right,

title, interest and possession over the Suit

Schedule 'C' Property under a registered Sale

Deed dated 16/03/2004 from Defendant

No.3/Respondent No.3 [Smt.P.Chaya), who

had acquired the Suit Schedule 'B' Property

under a registered Partition Deed dated

02/07/2003 and registered Rectification Deed

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4952

RFA No. 927 of 2010

HC-KAR

dated 02/04/2004. The Plaintiff claimed that

the Defendant Nos.6 and 7 interfered with his

possession alleging that Defendant No.1 has

executed a Power of Attorney on 15/06/1993 in

favour of Defendant No.7 and by virtue of the

same Defendant No.7 sold the Suit Schedule

'A' Property in favour of Defendant No.6, the

said documents are forged and hence sought

for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The Defendant Nos.1 to 5/ Respondent Nos.1

to 5 herein were claiming right, title, interest

and possession over Suit Schedule 'A' Property

under a Sale Deed dated 03/10/1960 executed

by Muthurayappa in favour of Smt. Nanjamma

[mother of Defendant No.1) and after the

death of Smt.Nanjamma revenue records were

mutated in the name of Defendant No.1 and

thereafter under the partition between

Defendant Nos.1 to 5, Schedule 'B' Property is

allotted to Defendant No.3 [Smt.P.Chaya) and

also admitted the execution of Sale Deed in

favour of Plaintiff in respect of Suit Schedule 'C'

Property. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 also

contended that the Defendant No.1 has not

executed any Power of Attorney in favour of

Defendant No.7 and the alleged Sale Deed

dated 07/11/1997 in favour