- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1112 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. JAYARAM FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER PRASHANTH 2. SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA @ CHANDRAPPA MAJOR IN AGE, APPELLANTS NO.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT JAKKUR, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SURESH S LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATHA SHETTY S/O LATE B. NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 2. SMT. SHANTHA R. UMAPATHI, W/O RAGHAVENDRA M UMAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.82, 1ST FLOOR, TYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 070. 3. KARNATAKA STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE, INDUSTRIES HBSC LTD., NO.10, JASMA BHAVAN, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR SRI. MURALIDHARA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KALPANA SUKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT); SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R3(ABSENT) ) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:12.04.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.2084/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BEN, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 96 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the XXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in OS.No.2084/2016 dated 12.04.2023 for having decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents has remained absent, even on the last date for hearing the arguments and therefore kept the matter for dictating the judgment today. 3. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and respondent No.3 was the defendant No.3 before the trial court. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that they filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with the suit schedule property bearing No.64, kaneshumari khatha No.382, BBMP khatha No.382/1/64, measuring east to west and north to south totally - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 1200 sq.ft., said to be formed a layout by the Karnataka State Khadi Gramodyoga Workers House Building Co-opearative Society Ltd., Bengaluru, said to be formed in Sy.No. 105/7/106/2. It is contended by the plaintiff they are the owners of the suit schedule property. They purchased from the defendant No.3 who is the GPA holder of defendant Nos.1 and 2 under the registered sale deed dated 15.03.1993, they said to be put in possession of the property. Subsequently, the property has been acquired by the BDA by gazette notification and thereafter said notification was quashed and upheld by the Division Bench as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court but the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are trying to interfere in the suit schedule property. Hence, they approached the court. 5. In pursuance of the summons the defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement by denying the title of the plaintiffs contending that the suit itself is not maintainable. As the defendant No.3 have no authority to involve in the real estate business, it is an agricultural property, there are standing crop. The transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 are violation of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 Land Acquisition Act and Land Reforms Act. There was acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA vide notification dated 03.02.2003. Thereafter de-notified, thereby defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit schedule property. And it is also contended that the plaintiff is not a member of the society, thereby the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief of injunction. Hence, prayed for dismissing of the suit. 6. The learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs submitted before the court, subsequent to the filing written statement, the plaintiff got amended the plaint for declaration and injunction. The amendment was carried out and amended plaint also filed but the trial court without framing an additional issues and given findings, the suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction has been decreed without considering the suit is for declaration and injunction. 7. However, the trial court has framed the following issues as under; 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 2) Whether plaintiffs prove the interference of the defendants? 3) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled for? 4) To what order (or) decree? 8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 herself examined as PW.1 and 12 documents were marked and the SPA holder of the defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and 57 documents were marked. And after hearing, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for granting injunction, which is under challenge. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the trial court has committed an error while passing the judgment for bare injunction instead of considering the suit for declaration and injunction. Even there is no additional issues were framed or recasting issues were framed for the suit for declaration, without considering the suit for declaration the bare injunction suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the plaintiff got amended the suit and filed for declaration, the trial court by ignoring the amendment and written statement of the defendant and without framing of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 Addl. issues, delivered the judgment only for bare injunction which is not sustainable. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment and requesting for remanding the matter for fresh consideration. 10. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity the learned counsel for the respondent remained absent. 11. Upon hearing the arguments and on perused the records, especially the copy of the plaint produced by the learned senior counsel, where the initially the respondent Nos.1 and 2/ the plaintiffs filed suit for bare injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. After filing of the written statement the plaintiff was filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC., and got amended the plaint. The copy of the amended plaint is placed before the court, where the amendment was carried out, an amended plaint also filed, the para 22(a) and 22(b) has been amended, for suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The prayer also mentioned, prayer (b) has been added, has to declare that the plaintiff has absolute right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, that the judgment and decree in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 O.S.No.1529/2014 and 1532/2014 are not binding on the plaintiffs. The amended plaint filed, where as the trial court framed the issues prior to the amendment and subsequently after the amendment the evidence was led by the plaintiffs. The evidence of the plaintiffs is almost for bare injunction but not for declaration. The issues were framed by the trial court also available on record, where the issues also framed by the trial court is only meant for considering bare injunction against the defendants and the trial court also given findings as could as it is only suit for bare injunction without considering the declaration and also to declare the decree obtained by the defendant which was sought for the relief of not binding on the plaintiff has been not considered by the trial court. The trial court proceeded to pass the judgment only based upon the documents, evidence, considered only as for bare injunction suit but not as declaration suit. The trial court committed an error in decreeing the suit only for bare injunction and the trial court ought to have rejected the declaration which is not done and there is no finding in respect of the decree obtained by the defendants in the earlier suits where the declaration sought for the plaintiffs are not binding on them. Such being the case the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6303 RFA No. 1112 of 2023 judgment of the trial court required to be interfered by this court to set aside for limited purpose for framing additional issues and dispose the matter by re-considering the evidence on record. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the XXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in OS.No.2084/2016 dated 12.04.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back for the trial court for fresh consideration for framing the additional issues for declaration suit and dispose the matter on merits. Office to send back the trial court records along with judgment. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 110