(cid:1)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)

(cid:7) (cid:7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER KOLAR.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVASA.G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

KRISHNAVENAMMA DEAD BY LRS

1. T S RANGARAJU S/O.T R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH GUPTHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

2. T S RAMESH S/O.T R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH GUPTHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

Digitally signed by SACHIN

3. T S AMARNATH Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O.T R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH GUPTHA KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

4. T S BADARINATH S/O.T R SAMPANGIRAMAIAH GUPTHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT M.C. CHOWK DODDAPET, KOLAR – 563 101.

5. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION IN KARNATAKA 9^TH FLOOR, VISHWEHWARAIAH TOWERS BANGALORE – 560 001.

(cid:1)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)

(cid:7) (cid:7)

6. THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COMMITTEE RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.

7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COMMITTEE KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAILESH.G. SHANKAR, FOR SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-4 SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, AGA FOR R-5 TO R-7)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.266/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,FAST TRACK COURT- I,KOLAR,DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.05/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), KOLAR.TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT, APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

CAV JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal by the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.5/2004 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kolar, (for short ‘the Trial Court’) is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.10.2008, whereby the said suit filed (cid:1)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)

(cid:7) (cid:7)

by respondent Nos.1 to 4 – plaintiffs against the appellant – defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.5 to 7 – defendant Nos.2 to 4 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants and confirmed by the Fast Track Court (FTC– I) at Kolar (First Appellate Court) which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant – 1^st defendant, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

2. On 29.11.2011, this Court admitted the present appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:

“Heard learned Counsel for the appellant regarding admission.

Appeal is admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) In the light of the specific defence of the appellant-defendant as to the plaintiffs not being in possession of the suit schedule property, whether the suit filed for relief of declaration and permanent injunction without seeking relief of possession was maintainable?

(ii) In the light of the specific defence of the appellant-defendant that the suit schedule property along with the adjacent property were (cid:1)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)

(cid:7) (cid:7)

granted to it by the Government for formation of building sites, whether the Government is a necessary party to the suit, if so, whether the suit without impleading the Government as a party is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party?

(iii) Whether the lower appellant Court is justified in law in refusing to permit the appellant-defendant to adduce additional evidence without going into the question as to whether the additional evidence sought to be produced is rele