IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2025 (POS)

BETWEEN:

A RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O. LATE AKAMBARAM RESIDING AT NO. 49/23, 9^TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560023 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K B S MANIAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHIVARAJ Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NAGARAJA B M RESIDENTS OF NO. 64/2, Location: HIGH COURT OF 2^ND CROSS, MINAJ NAGAR, KARNATAKA JP NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078

2. YASHODA N.C.

W/O. SHIVARAJ, RESIDENTS OF NO. 64/2, 2^ND CROSS, MINAJ NAGAR, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078

3. MIRLE VARADARAJU NO. 544, 5^TH MAIN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560060

4. R. MANJUNATH NO. 1174, PADUVANA ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, ROAD IV STAGE, TK LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570023 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & C/R2 (CP 6431/25)]

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.26160/2018 ON THE FILE OF LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.26160/2018 wherein the relief of mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff is declined by the Court.

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 suit schedule property is bearing No.633 measuring 32 x 40 ft. Plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, which according to the plaintiff, is situated in a private residential layout formed by the REMCO(BHEL) Housing Society. Plaintiff asserts that he was an employee of BHEL and that the suit site was allotted to him by the REMCO vide allotment letter dated 31.01.1992 pursuant to which registered sale deed came to be executed on 14.12.1992. Plaintiff further asserts that possession was delivered by the housing society under Possession Certificate dated 1.4.1993. The grievance of the plaintiff is that defendants encroached upon small corner portion of the suit schedule property measuring 7 ft. x 5 ft. and erected a temporary shed. Plaintiff also specifically pleaded that he had instituted a suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S.No.2029/2017 and the plaint was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 7.9.2018 holding that no cause of action was made out.

The said order of rejection was also challenged in RFA.No.1602/2018, which was also dismissed by this Court.

After dismissal of appeal, plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction.

4. Defendants upon receipt of summons tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants in their written statement categorically contended that they are the lawful owners of the land in question, the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff executed by REMCO is void and unenforceable in view of quashing of acquisition proceedings. The defendants further elaborately have pleaded that the acquisition in favour of BHEL/REMCO has been declared as illegal and opposed to public policy by the writ Court in W.P.21920/2010 and this order is affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is in this backdrop, the defendants claimed that present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") and therefore, the earlier plaint having been rejected and affirmed by this Court in an appeal, the present suit is clear abuse of process of Court.

5. The Trial Court formulated appropriate issues and plaintiff and defendants have let in oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

6. The trial C