##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4951

RFA No. 928 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.928 OF 2010 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

SRI SYED KALEEM AHMED

S/O LATE SYED ISMAIL,

AGED 50 YEARS,

R/AT: NO.223, 7^TH CROSS,

GANGONDANAHALLI,

NAYANDANAHALLI POST,

BANGALORE – 560 039.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI JANARDHAN N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI PILLAMARI

S/O LATE POOJAPPA,

AGED 56 YEARS,

Digitally signed

by 2. SMT AKKIYAMMA

MARKONAHALLI

RAMU PRIY A W/O PILLAMARI,

Location: HIGH AGED 47 YEARS,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

3. SMT P. CHAYA

D/O PILLAMARI,

AGED 31 YEARS,

4. SRI P.RAVI

S/O PILLAMARI,

AGED 29 YEARS,

5. SRI P. SURESH

S/O PILLAMARI,

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4951

RFA No. 928 of 2010

HC-KAR

AGED 27 YEARS,

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.16256/2004 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:4951

RFA No. 928 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.16256/2004.

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.16256/2004 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.5 /

Respondent No.5 [Sri.P.Suresh], who had

acquired a portion of the Suit Schedule 'B'

Property under a registered Partition Deed dated

02/07/2003 and registered Rectification Deed

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4951

RFA No. 928 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,

portion of Schedule 'B' Property is allotted to

Defendant No.3 [Sri.P.Suresh | 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