- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24996 RFA No. 402 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR.M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. NARENDRA.L.DAIVAGNA S/O L.N.DAIVANGNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.491, MANDARA, 9TH MAIN ROAD, II BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 097. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24996 RFA No. 402 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Ajaykumar.M., counsel for the appellant, has appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondent was ordered on 26.09.2019. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor represented himself as a party in person. 3. This is an appeal from the court of LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-66). 4. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 5. The plaint averments are as under: It is stated that the plaintiff became the owner of the scheduled property by purchasing the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.05.2010 from its owner, V.N.Lakshminarayana, for a valuable consideration. The property comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP, and ever since the purchase, the plaintiff has been in uninterrupted possession - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24996 RFA No. 402 of 2018 and enjoyment of the property. It is contended that the official of BDA came near the suit property on 25.09.2015 and 30.09.2015 and tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and threatened to dispossess. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit seeking the relief of an injunction. After service of the summons, the defendant appeared through its counsel and filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and sought dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as exhibits. On the other hand, the defendant neither adduced oral evidence nor furnished documentary evidence. The Trial Court vide Judgment dated 17.12.2016 decreed the suit and the defendant or anybody under him was restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, the defendant has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24996 RFA No. 402 of 2018 6. Counsel for the appellant urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. 7. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference. 8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of an injunction. As could be seen from the nature of the lis between the parties, the suit is one for a bare injunction based on possession as of the date of filing of the suit. The right to an injunction is based on a prima facie right. The issue revolves around the factum of possession as of the date of filing of the suit. It would be relevant to see that in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must prove her/his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit. In the present case, the plaintiff has met the criteria. It is pivotal to note that, except for filing the written statement and denying the plaint averments, the defendant did not step into the witness box to disprove the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24996 RFA No. 402 of 2018 plaintiff’s case. The Trial Court extenso, referred to the material on record and rightly decreed the suit. There is nothing much to discuss about the issue because the pleadings are simple, the documents are minimal, and the Trial Court referred to the material on record and rightly decreed the suit. The conclusion and the findings are just and proper. I find no error in the judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30