IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2012 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI M B RAMACHANDRAN S/O LATE BYRAPPAAGED SINCE DEAD BY LRs

1(A) SMT. M. HEMALATHA W/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046. 1(B) SRI. R.PRAVEEN S/O LATE M.B. RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046.

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A 1(C) SMT. PAVITHRA .R Location: HIGH D/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN COURT OF KARNATAKA W/O Y. SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046.

ALSO AT NO.33, 13^TH CROSS AECS LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU-560 094. 1(D) SMT. PALLAVI .R D/O LATE M.B.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.55 NANDIDURGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 046.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BENGALURU J.C.ROAD, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560002.

2. SRI. R.N. GANGADHARAIAH S/O K.V. NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR R/A NO.39, III CROSS ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET SHESHADRI ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 046.

3. SMT M B PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE B KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS [R3 DELETED V/O DATED 12.04.2017]

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHEGOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

V/O DATED 12.04.2017, R3 IS DELETED)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S.3151/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE,DISMISSING THE SUIT 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

Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.3151/2002, wherein plaintiff’s suit for injunction simpliciter restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession is dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, 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 instituted the suit in O.S.No.3151/2002 claiming that the suit schedule property was purchased by his grandfather, Munimarappa, under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1908. According to the plaintiff, the property covered under the said sale deed corresponded to Survey No.101 (old), which was subsequently renumbered as Survey Nos.101/1 and 101/2. It is pleaded that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the property was not assigned specific survey numbers and was identified only by boundaries. The plaintiff further pleaded that one Appayyanna, a close relative, had purchased an extent of 1.09 acres in Survey No.101/1 under a sale deed dated 17.07.1946 from one A. Anthony Michael, and that the said purchase was for and on behalf of the plaintiff and other family members.

4. The plaintiff further averred that after the coming into force of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, “the Inams Act”), he had filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property and that the said application is pending consideration before the competent authority. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the second defendant, who has no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property, is asserting a false claim of ownership on the basis of fabricated and concocted documents, despite the matter being seized of by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff further alleged that he has erected sheds and enclosed the suit schedule property with a compound wall, and that the defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession.

5. It is also the plaintiff’s case that the second defendant has neither claimed tenancy rights nor filed any application before the Land Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner seeking grant of occ