IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 649 OF 2010 (PAR/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. M SRIDHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O M NANDA KUMAR REDDY RESIDING AT NO.11416 WOOD VIEW DRIVE HARGERS TOWN (CITY) USA.

2. SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.12137 'A' BLOCK, 60 FEET ROAD SAHAKARNAGAR BANGALORE-560 092.

(APPELLANT NO.1 IS REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.2)

…APPELLANTS Digitally signed (BY SRI. S VASANTH MADHAV., ADVOCATE)

by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. MISS KAVITHA LAKSHMI P AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O H P PRABHAKAR RESIDING AT NO.12/1 CHABRIA RESIDENCY

3RD MAIN ROAD K. H. M. BLOCK GANGANAGAR BANGALORE 560 032.

2. R CHINNA KRISHNIAH S/O SRI RAMIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT JANATHA STORES UPSTAIRS OPP. NO.27, AECS LAYOUT

2ND STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 94.

3. B K RAMMANNA S/O MUDDIAAH RESIDING AT NO.1818 'C' BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 092.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV. FOR SRI. S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;

V/O DATED 04.06.2013, NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.1.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.9668/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by defendant Nos.2 and 3 directed against the judgment and decree dated

08.01.2010 passed in O.S.No.9668/2006, whereby the plaintiffs suit for injunction simpliciter is decreed and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are restrained from interfering with plaintiffs legal possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

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 plaintiffs instituted a suit against defendant Nos.1 to 3 seeking perpetual injunction. Plaintiffs are tracing title through defendant No.1/B.K. Ramanna. Plaintiffs assert that defendant No.1 through his GPA holder namely H.P.Prabhakar who is plaintiff No.1’s father executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on 05.02.2003. Plaintiffs have specifically asserted that the said H.P. Prabhakar had obtained a registered GPA from defendant No.1 in 1999. The plaintiffs have also specifically pleaded that their vendor/defendant No.1 acquired agricultural land of which the present suit schedule property is part and parcel under registered sale deed dated 18.12.1996 from one Bibijan to an extent of 15 guntas in Sy.No.7/4B. Thereafter it is alleged that defendant No.1 executed an agreement with possession coupled with registered GPA in favour of father of plaintiff No.1 under registered GPA. The father of the plaintiff No.1 under valid authorization has conveyed the property. Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant No.1 requested father of plaintiff No.1 to reconvey the property and therefore plaintiffs alleged that they entered into a fresh agreement on 03.07.2001 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,92,000/-. However, since defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of contract, the agreement stood cancelled and later plaintiff No.1 entered into an agreement with plaintiff No.2 on 07.10.2006 where it was agreed for conveyance for a sale consideration of Rs.39,00,000/-. While plaintiff No.2 based on agreement tried to construct a compound wall and a shed, the defendant No.3 strangely without semblance of right tried to demolish the compound wall under the garb of having obtained a sale deed on 23.02.2005 from defendant No.1. Therefore, the present suit for injunction simpliciter came to be filed.

4. In response to the suit summons, defendant No.1 failed to contest the suit. Defendant No.3 filed his written statement, while de