- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24914 RFA No. 141 of 2016 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. 141 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIJAYA LAXMI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A NO.436, 3RD CROSS, PIPELINE, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. 2. SMT. A.K.RAMAMANI W/O K.N.BHAGAWAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.128, 1ST MAIN, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. SMT. SAROJA W/O C.K.RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.672, 8TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, 9TH MAIN, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 084. 4. SMT. S.VASANTHA D/O LATE A.KASTURIRANGACHAR, W/O D.SAMPATH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.25, K.C.SETH LAYOUT, 9TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHNAGAR, W.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 010. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKRISHNA BHAT.M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24914 RFA No. 141 of 2016 AND: 1. SMT. SHOBHA.S.ANGADI W/O SRI.S.V.ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO.22, 2ND ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, LINK ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. 2. SRI. S.V.ANGADI S/O LATE V.O.ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2ND ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, LINK ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. 3. SRI A.SRINIVASACHAR S/O LATE A.K.DESHIKACHAR, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/A NO.7/2, KRISHNA BLOCK, 1ST A MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. 4. SMT. A.JAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI A.SRINIVASACHAR, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A NO.2, KRISHNA BLOCK, 1ST A MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. 5. SMT. A.S.ANUPAMA W/O SRI M.S.RAGHUVEERA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/A BLOCK 419 #09-229, BUKIT BATOK, SINGAPORE-650 419. REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI A.SRINIVASACHAR. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24914 RFA No. 141 of 2016 6. SMT. A.S.ANURADHA W/O SRI.SANTHOSH PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NO.424, 16TH MAIN ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 017. 7. MS. ANDAL.A.S. D/O SRI A.SRINIVASACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.2, KRISHNA BLOCK, IST A MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. 8. SRI. A.K.SRINIVAS S/O A.KASTURI RANGACHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.2, KRISHNA BLOCK, 1ST A MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. 9. THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 10. SRI. PRAKASH.V.SHENOY S/O VENKATESHWARA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/A NO.16/2, 2ND CROSS (PARK DOWN), MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANGADI.S.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 [ABSENT]; SRI. BATHEGOWDA.K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R9 [ABSENT]; R3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R6-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:09.09.2024) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24914 RFA No. 141 of 2016 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat, counsel for the appellants, has appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 9, either personally or through video conferencing. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 19.06.2025; on that day, there was no representation on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 9. The appeal is listed today. Today also there is also no representation on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 9. Hence, this Court deems it proper to pass an appropriate order on the merits of the case. Notice to respondents 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 was ordered. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24914 RFA No. 141 of 2016 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs contended that they are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. Alleging interference by defendants 1 and 2, they filed a suit seeking appropriate relief. After the service of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel, and defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, and defendants 9 and 10 filed separate written statements, and the rest of the defendants did not file any written statement. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. Parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 dismissed the suit. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the captioned appeal under Section 96 of CPC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24914 RFA No. 141 of 2016 Counsel for the appellants urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care. 5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit. 6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves within a narrow compass. Suffice it to note that the property measuring 28 feet X 40 feet was the subject matter before the DRT and PW1 admits the same in his cross-examination. Because the plaintiffs failed to repay the loan amount, the DRT conducted the public auction during the pendency of the suit, and Defendant No.10 purchased the property. He is the absolute owner of the suit property as of today and has no grievance about the alleged interference by defendants 1 and 2. Moreover, the Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to show any encroachment by defendants 1 and 2, and they have also lost title over the suit schedule property. The dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is just and proper. As already noted above, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24914 RFA No. 141 of 2016 the issue falls within a narrow compass, pleadings are quite simple and the documents exhibited are also minimal. The appeal is devoid of merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14