- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2243 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MILIND DANGE, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHANKUNTALA W/O LATE K. SRINIVASMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/AT NO.50, 12TH BLOCK, SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI BHADRI R @ BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26599/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-73), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This regular first appeal is preferred by the State- defendant assailing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.26599/2019 dated 16.03.2021 on the file of the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-73) (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the suit for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction came to be decreed. Plaint Averments: 2. The plaintiff is the wife of late K. Srinivasmurthy, who was the owner in possession of land measuring 6 acres 15 guntas in Survey No.13 situated at Navaratan Agrahara Village (‘suit property’ for short) regranted to him by the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli in Case No.LRF(INA)361/1981-82 dated 30.09.1982. Based on the grant, his name was mutated in the revenue records and subsequently, the land was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use under the order dated 28.11.1991 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bengaluru. Her husband constructed a compound wall around the property and remained in peaceful possession until his death on 03.01.2012. After his death, the plaintiff and her children, as his legal heirs continued to possess and enjoy the suit property. The plaintiff averred that in June 2017, the defendant-State, with the help of the other officials, erected a board/hoarding in front of the suit property, wrongly declaring it to be a ‘Government Gomal Land’. When she produced her documents, the defendant’s office admitted that the land belonged to her family and promised to remove the board, terming the erection as inadvertent. However, despite repeated representation and reminders and a statutory notice under Section 80 CPC dated 20.08.2019, the defendant failed to act. She contended that the erection of hoarding without notice, order, or authority was arbitrary, baseless and unauthorised. Therefore, she prayed for a declaration that the board was illegal, for a mandatory injunction, directing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 its removal and for a permanent injunction restraining interference with her possession. Written statement averments: 3. The defendant-State contended that the entire Survey No.13 measuring about 170 acres, was originally inam land that vested with the Government upon abolition in 1956 under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act, 1954. Persons in possession were entitled to seek regrant, and accordingly, late K. Srinivasmurthy, the plaintiff’s husband, filed an application before the Land Tribunal. On 30.09.1982, the Land Tribunal regranted the suit property in his favour. 4. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff had approached the office in 2017, requesting removal of the board. On examining her records and conducting a spot inspection, it was found that the board was wrongly erected in front of the regranted land. The defendant explained that during routine enquiries under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, boards were erected - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 on land suspected to be government property or encroached land. Under such a presumption, the board was installed, but on verification, it was realized that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant stated that the erection was a bonafide mistake, caused by inadvertence and oversight, and assured that the steps would be taken to remove it. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit contending that there was no deliberate interference with the plaintiff’s property. 5. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and held that the plaintiff has proved that the Land Tribunal under Exs.P2 and P3 regranted the suit property in favour of the plaintiff’s husband and accordingly, his name was mutated under Ex.P5. The trial Court observed that the defendant has categorically admitted in its written statement that the board was installed in front of the plaintiff's property due to mistake, and held that the hoarding erected in the plaintiff's property was illegal. The trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the Land Tribunal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 re-granted the suit property in favour of the plaintiff’s husband in the year 1982 and the plaintiff has successfully proved her ownership, possession and the wrongful act of the State and directed the hoardings to be removed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the oblique motive of the plaintiff in filing the suit. It is urged that the suit was instituted with an intention to lay claim over government land under the guise of a grant made in favour of the plaintiff’s husband. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the contradictions in the case of the plaintiff and by overlooking the inconsistency, the trial Court has erroneously held the act of the defendant to be illegal and unauthorised. The Court relied upon the deposition of PW.1, wherein she denied the suggestion that the government has erected a hoarding in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 government land situated opposite to the land regranted to the plaintiff's husband and instead volunteered that the hoardings are erected in front of the entrance of her husband's land. However, this evidence is at variance with the pleadings of the plaintiff, wherein she herself averred that, in order to reaffirm her title, she had sought information from the defendant’s office as to the basis for erection of the board in front of the suit property. According to her own pleadings, she was informed there was no order passed by any competent authority declaring the suit property as government land, and that in the absence of any such order, the conduct of the defendant in erecting the board was baseless and unauthorised. This contradiction between her pleadings and oral testimony was not considered by the trial Court. By overlooking such inconsistency, and by branding the act of the defendant as blindly illegal and unauthorised, the trial Court erred in law and thereby decreed the suit without due scrutiny of the plaintiff's shifting stand. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supports the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and submits that the findings were based on proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. It is urged that the plaintiff’s husband was lawfully re-granted suit property by the Land Tribunal in 1982 and the said grant was duly mutated and converted for non-agricultural use. After his demise, the plaintiff and her children have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant-State, without issuing any notice or order, arbitrarily erected a hoarding in front of the plaintiff’s property, branding it as Government Gomal land. The plaintiff produced cogent records to establish her possession and title, which was not rebutted by the defendant by leading any evidence. On the contrary, the defendant in its written statement admitted that the hoarding was wrongly installed due to inadvertence. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly held the act of the defendant to be arbitrary and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 illegal, and decreed the suit by granting the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The respondent contends that the appeal is devoid of merit, being a mere attempt to re-agitate issues already settled by due consideration, and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit while declaring the erection of the hoarding as arbitrary and illegal and granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff?” 10. K. Srinivasmurthy, the plaintiff’s husband was granted suit property by the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli by an order dated 30.09.1982. The grant was duly mutated in his name and the land was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.11.1991. The plaintiff has produced the order passed by the Land Tribunal, revenue records and mutation entry - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 at Exs.P2 to P7, showing continuous recognition of title and possession. The defendant in its written statement has clearly admitted in an unequivocal term that the board was erected in front of the plaintiff’s property due to mistake and inadvertence. Once such an admission was made, the State could not have later shifted its stand to contend that the land on which the hoarding was erected is government land. The defendant did not lead any evidence to prove otherwise and its evidence was taken as Nil. The Trial Court relied upon the admission and absence of rebuttable evidence to hold in favour of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff’s inconsistency is that the board was erected in front of suit property and produced oral and documentary evidence to support her contention. The cross-examination of PW.1 further confirmed that the land regranted to her husband was enclosed by a compound wall, and the hoarding was placed directly in front of the entrance. Any minor variation between the pleadings and the deposition cannot override the substantial consistency - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 of the plaintiff’s case, especially when supported by unimpeached records. 11. The trial Court has rightly considered the oral and documentary evidence and the categorical admission in the written statement. The findings of the Trial Court are supported by records and are neither perverse nor arbitrary. The plaintiff established her lawful ownership and possession; the defendant admitted the mistake and failed to prove otherwise. Statutory requirements were complied with, and the reliefs necessary to protect the plaintiff's property rights were accordingly granted. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated O.S. No.26599/2019 dated 16.03.2021 on the file of the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35868 RFA No. 2243 of 2024 Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-73) stands confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35