- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3009 RFA No. 621 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: M/S. KARNATAKA MILK CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KMF COMPLEX, DR. M.N.MARI GOWDA ROAD, D.R.COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 029, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.TEJESH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O K.C.ADIMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI JAYARAM.A @ BABU S/O K.C.ADIMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. SRI RAJESH.A S/O K.C.ADIMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.7, DODDAKRISHNAPPA BLOCK, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR SUN RISE SCHOOL, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.V.SHASHIKUMAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3009 RFA No. 621 of 2017 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, A JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Tejesh., counsel on behalf of Sri.Shanmukhappa., for the appellant and Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., counsel for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiff contended that he is the owner of the site formed in Sy.No.60/3 of Nagashettihalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring to an extent of 52' x 64' and the same was purchased under the agreement of sale from Smt.Parvathamma for valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. Pursuant to the agreement, the vendor had executed power of attorney on 27.09.1996 authorizing the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3009 RFA No. 621 of 2017 plaintiff to do such acts and things for the beneficial enjoyment of the property including the power of sale and construction of the building and residing therein. The plaintiff contended that pursuant to the agreement, he has constructed a house and residing in the same. The plaintiff further contended that he has been in settled possession of the suit schedule property. However, the defendant interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit in O.S.No.9769/1998 on the file of XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru seeking the relief of permanent injunction. After service of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through its counsel and filed written statement. The defendant contended that the land was acquired by the competent authority and the compensation was also paid to the land owners. They further contended that they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the land from 1978. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. To substantiate the case, the original plaintiff examined - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3009 RFA No. 621 of 2017 himself as PW1 and a witness as PW2 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. The defendant neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced documentary evidence. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2017, decreed the suit in part. Hence, the defendant has filed the captioned Regular First Appeal. 5. Counsel Sri.Tejesh., in presenting his arguments vehemently contends that the Judgment and the Decree of the Trial Court is contrary to the material on record and the same is liable to be set-aside. Next, he submits that the property in question is acquired and the compensation was paid to the land owners. The defendant KMF is in possession of the property in question. A further submission is made that the plaintiff is not the owner and is not in possession of the property. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is liable to be set-aside - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3009 RFA No. 621 of 2017 and the same may be set-aside. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed. 6. Counsel Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., for the respondents justified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. He submits that the Trial Court has granted injunction based on the possession. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with care. 8. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference. 9. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction based on possession. The defendant contended before the Trial Court that the land in question was acquired and they are in possession of the same. Before this Court also, they have adhered to the said contention. However, to substantiate the said contention, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3009 RFA No. 621 of 2017 defendant has not furnished any document. Furthermore, the defendant has not entered the witness box and it did not cross- examine the plaintiff witnesses. On the other hand, the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit property has furnished the documents. It is pivotal to note that the suit for the relief of permanent injunction filed based on possession. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit and granted injunction. In my view, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is just and proper. I find no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal is liable to be rejected. 10. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53