IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2005 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT VISHALAKSHI D/O.S.KRISHNAPPAA GED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GRAND D/O.VENKATAMMA@ PILLAMMA, R/AT PROPERTY SY.NO.44/8, IN HOUSE PUT-UPTHEREIN, DUBASIPALYA, VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, OFF MYSORE ROAD, R.V.COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 057.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. TEJUS,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUMA B N SMT. I A KASTURI W/O. I K AIYANNA Location: H IGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS KARNATAKA NO.33/37, 9^TH CROSS IST MAIN ROAD, BAPUJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 026.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M J ALVA.,ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 O 41 R 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.29.6.05 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1912/01 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-

19), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2005 passed in O.S.No.1912/2001 on the file of VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').

2. Subject matter of suit is property bearing House list No.40 with V.P.Khata No.44/8/45/1 together with a house thereon situated at Dubasipalya, Valagerehalli, Kengeri CMC Area, Kengeri, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring East to West

30Ft., and North to South 40Ft., and bounded on the :

East by :Property No.41 West by :Property No.39 North by :30Ft., road and South by :property No.25.

3. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Contending inter-alia that the plaintiff/respondent is the absolute owner in possession of the suit scheduled property having acquired the title and possession by virtue of absolute deed of sale dated 09.07.1998 and her name having been mutated in the revenue records and she being in undisturbed possession of the property ever since the purchase. That the suit schedule property consisted of a structure which was in a highly dilapidated condition, as such, she could not reside in the suit scheduled property. That when she was in the process of repairing and renovating the same on 12.03.2011 at about 04.00 p.m. defendant/appellant with others threatened the plaintiff/respondent and the workers not to proceed the work further. Plaintiff/respondent not being in position to resist the illegal and high handed act of the defendant/appellant, filed the above suit.

4. Written statement was filed by the defendant/appellant, while denying the case of the plaintiff/respondent it is specifically contended that there is no existence of suit schedule property. That the land in Sy.No.44/8, measuring 2 acres and 33 guntas belonged to grandmother of the defendant/appellant, namely Smt.

Venkatamma @ Smt. Pillamma, which she acquired through her husband Sri. D.P. Narayanappa, who in turn had acquired in terms of partition deed dated 14.08.1944.

4.1 That upon the demise of the husband of said Smt.

Venkatamma, she continued possession and enjoyment of the same. She has built a house bearing Khata No.105/5 and paying the tax thereon.

4.2 The other land is Sy.No.45/1 belonged to one Smt.Venkatalakshmamma which has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. The plaintiff/respondent deliberately clubbed both the Sy.Nos.44/8 and 45/1, and house list No.40 and Panchayath House List No.1258, though, no such sites existed.

4.3 That the description of property given by the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint is misleading. Claim of the plaintiff/respondent having acquired the suit property in terms of deed of sale dated 09.07.1998 is