- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25461 RFA No. 693 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 693 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. S.VINUTHA W/O SRI.C.SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.294, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANANDANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BHANUPRASAD.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, GROUND FLOOR, OPP.NEW CARMEL SCHOOL, KHB COLONY, KRISHNANANDANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 096. 2. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 6TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M.RAMAMURTHY REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & 2 [ABSENT]) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25461 RFA No. 693 of 2018 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, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Bhanuprasad.K., counsel for the appellant, has appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 10.07.2025. On that day, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents; hence, for the appearance of counsel for the respondents, the appeal was ordered to be listed on 11.07.2025. It was made clear that if no one appears for the respondents on the next date of hearing, the Court will proceed to pass appropriate orders. The appeal is listed today. As already noted above, today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25461 RFA No. 693 of 2018 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45). 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaint averments are these: The BDA allotted site No.937, measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 20 ft., situated at Vijayanandanagara, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru, to Smt.Thimmamma vide Allotment Letter dated 20.10.1991. Consequently, the BDA executed lease cum sale agreement on 17.09.1992 and BDA put her in possession of the property vide allotment letter dated 19.10.1992. It is said that Thimmamma executed a registered GPA dated 21.04.1994 in favor of the plaintiff, agreeing to convey the scheduled site. However, the BDA cancelled the Lease cum Sale Agreement dated 17.09.1992 under registered Cancellation Deed dated 13.12.2011. After the cancellation of the allotment, a fresh allotment of site No.937 measuring East to West 30 ft and North to South 20 ft was made in favor of the plaintiff vide allotment letter - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25461 RFA No. 693 of 2018 dated 20.03.2012 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the property vide Possession Certificate dated 04.09.2012 and consequently, the BDA executed a registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff on 06.07.2012. The plaintiff specifically contended that ever since the date of execution of sale deed, she is exercising her right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property as absolute owner and the revenue entries were changed and she has put up temporary shed measuring 10 X 15 ft. over the suit schedule property to prevent interference or trespass. Alleging interference by the defendants, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of a permanent injunction. After service of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed a common written statement. They denied the plaint averments. They contended that they are in lawful possession of Site No.928, measuring 30 X 15 ft, with a small construction. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, the parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25461 RFA No. 693 of 2018 Court vide Judgment dated 12.03.2018 dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 5. Counsel for the appellant urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. 6. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference. 7. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25461 RFA No. 693 of 2018 Reverting to the facts of the case, the plaintiff has furnished a registered sale deed on 06.07.2012 to prove her prima facie ownership and possession over the suit property. As already noted above, in a suit for injunction, the prima facie ownership and lawful possession over the suit schedule property as of the date of filing of the suit must be looked into. The material evidence on record depicts that the plaintiff has met the criteria. The Trial Court unnecessarily took pains to discuss as if there was a dispute about the identity of the property. The Trial Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. There is nothing much to discuss about the issue because the pleadings are simple and the documents are minimal. The Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. 8. The Judgment and Decree dated 12.03.2018 passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) in O.S.No.8141/2014 is set aside. The plaintiff's suit is decreed. The defendants, their agents or anybody acting through or under them are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or dispossessing her from the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25461 RFA No. 693 of 2018 The Registry is hereby directed to draw the decree accordingly. 9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29