THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 16.09.2010 PASSED IN O.S.16066/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE IV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment passed by IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in O.S.No.16066/2003 dated 16.09.2010.

2. The plaintiff filed the present suit against defendants Nos.1 to 3 contending that he acquired suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 19.04.2003 and that the Khata has since been duly transferred to his name. The plaintiff submits that she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase and has been regularly paying the applicable tax. It is further stated that the suit schedule property originally belonged to defendant No.1. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale with Zahrunnissa. After receiving entire sale consideration from Zahrunnissa, defendant No.1 executed General Power of Attorney dated 10.01.1989 in her favour in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the said property through the said Zahrunnissa acting as GPA Holder. The defendants have neither title nor possession over the suit schedule property, however, they attempted to interfere with and trespass upon the said suit schedule property, thereby compelling the plaintiff to institute the present suit.

3. Defendants further contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to the suit schedule property and is neither the owner nor has any right, title, or interest therein. It is alleged that the plaintiff has created false and fabricated documents to support his claim. The defendants further stated that defendant No.2 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13.03.1986. It is specifically denied that defendant No.1 ever executed any agreement of sale or General Power of Attorney in favour of Zahrunnissa and it is contended that the said Zahrunnissa had no authority whatsoever to deal with or execute any document in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also submitted that defendant No.2 has initiated eviction proceedings in HRC No.517/2003 against Rehman, the alleged tenant and father of the plaintiff and the said proceedings are still pending. Further, defendant No.2 had mortgaged the suit schedule property with his department during his service and obtained a loan, thereby evidencing his ownership and possession, therefore requested the court to dismiss the suit.

4. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff is only a tenant in the suit schedule property and is merely an occupant. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined witnesses as PW1 and PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1 and produced documents marked as Exs.D1 to D13. Upon consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit schedule property and were further restrained from taking possession pursuant to the order in HRC No.517/2003, except by due process of law. It is further stated that the suit for declaration of title and for declaration of sale deed dated 13.03.1986 is not binding on the plaintiff, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff further contended that the appellant and her family members