1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

R.F.A NO.915/2017

BETWEEN:

SRI. SRINIVASA

S/O. J. VENKATESH

AGED 35 YEARS

NO.3581, 8^TH CROSS,

1^ST MAIN ROAD, GAYATHRI NAGAR

BANGALORE-560 021. ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH FOR K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAFIQ MOHMOOD

S/O LATE H.Y. MOHMOOD

AGED 61 YEARS

NO.30/1, ST MARK ROAD CROSS,

BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY FOR SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY,

ADVOCATE, FOR C/R- THROUGH V.C.)

THIS R.F.A IS FILED U/S 96 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2017 PASSED IN

O.S.NO.5142/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed today for orders, the

same is taken up for final disposal having regard to the

facts and circumstance of the case.

2.

This Regular First appeal is filed by the

appellant under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the

judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 passed in

O.S.No.5142/2012 by the learned XXIX Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

3.

In order to avoid confusion and over-lapping,

parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings

and status held by them before the trial Court.

4.

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant

seeking for permanent injunction in respect of the

schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant

3

filed written statement by denying the plaint averments

and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.

The learned Trial Judge based on the

pleadings and contentions of the parties, framed

following issues :-

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful

possession over the suit schedule property as

on the date of the suit?

2.

Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged

interfered of the defendant?

3.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief

of permanent injunction?

4.

What order or decree?

6.

Before the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiff

himself examined as PW-1 and in support of his case

examined one witness as PW-2 and got marked the

documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P69, Ex.P1 the certified

copy of the sale deed dated 06.01.1996, Ex.P2, the

certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.04.2012, Ex.P3

4

the letter of company registration certificate, Ex.P4

affidavit with respect to registration dated 01.06.2012,

Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 two invoice bills dated 08.08.2011,

Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 two testing certificate issued by SNM

company on 27.07.2011, Ex.P9 tax invoice issued by the

Lawrence Limited, Ex.P10 Bill of Save dated 14.11.2011,

Ex.P11 certified copy of the letter submitted to BESCOM

seeking for electricity connection dated 02.11.2011,

Ex.P12 Letter relating to connection of electricity dated

25.04.2011, Ex.P13 to Ex.P17 five electricity bills,

Ex.P18 encumbrance certificate from 01.04.2010 to

16.07.2012,

Ex.P19

encumbrance

certificate

from

01.04.1975 to 31.03.2004, Ex.P20 endorsement issued

by the police, Ex.P21 to Ex.P32 two photographs, Ex.P33

C.D, Ex.P34 to Ex.P38 five tax paid receipts, Ex.P39

receipt issued by the Commissioner of Commercial tax,

Ex.P40 letter of Axis bank dated 13.06.2013, Ex.P41

letter of Axis bank dated 13.06.2013 marked subject to

5

objection, Ex.P42 letter sent by Indian Airtel Limited,

Ex.P43 Bill issued by Indian Airtel Limited, Ex.P44

receipt issued by the HDFC Bank, Ex.P45 letter issued by

BESCOM dated 28.05.2013, Ex.P46 application pertained

to Sajjal Saralikrutha, Ex.P47 demand notice issued by

the BWSSB dated 17.09.2013, Ex.P48 water bill issued

by the BWSSB, Ex.P49 receipt pertaining to amount

deposited with the BWSSB, Ex.P50 endorsement dated

27.07.2013 issued by B