- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1803 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI DAYANANDA KUMARA S/O NANDEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NOW PRESENT R/AT NO.1336, 1ST FLOOR, 20TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN, ‘A’ BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560092. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI ADINARAYANAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.1, 10TH CROSS, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2911/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, 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:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT This regular first appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2022 in O.S. No.2911/2019, on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction and restrained the defendant, his men and anybody acting on his behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 2. The suit schedule property is described as under: “SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.13, formed in Sy.No.6/1A. Vide D.C. Conversion order as No.B.DIS.ALN.SR(N)194/92-93, dated:10/12/1992, the Kodigehalli Village, Panchayath khata No.1163/13, and present BBMP khata No.1998/689/1163/13, Ward No.8 situated at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 Kodigehalli village, Virupakshapura, Ashwathappa lay-out, Yelahanka hobli, Bengaluru North taluk, measuring East to West 54-0 feet and North to South 30-0 feet and total measuring 1620 square feet with 16x30 square feet sheet roofed building with surrounded by compound wall with water and electricity facility and bounded as follows: East by : 25 feet Road, West by : Private Property, North by : Site No.14, South by : Site No.12.” (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ for short). 3. The plaintiff’s case is that the land bearing No.6/1A measuring 6 acres 12 guntas originally belonged to Range Gowda, who sold an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in Survey No.6/1A to Smt. Venkamma under a registered sale deed dated 13.01.1951. Venkamma inturn sold the said property in favour of Muniyamma under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1972. It is averred that Muniyamma and her three children entered into an unregistered partition deed, wherein 1 acre of land in Survey No.6/1A was allotted to V. Gopalappa and Ashwathappa. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 plaintiff states that V. Gopalappa converted a portion of the land under the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 10.12.1992 and thereafter formed sites. One such site, Site No.13, was sold to N. Srinivas Murthy by registered sale deed dated 17.04.1997. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the same site from Srinivas Murthy by sale deed dated 31.05.2014. He asserts that he has constructed a house, obtained electricity and BWSSB water connection, and is in peaceful possession. On the defendant’s alleged interference, he has filed the present suit for permanent injunction. 4. The case of the defendant is that the entire land measuring 6 acres 12 guntas, including 2 guntas of phot karab in Survey No.6/1A, was acquired by the Government for the NTI Housing Cooperative Society (‘Society’ for short) under the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) on 04.01.1985. The final notification was issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, the award was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 passed on 31.01.1989 and possession was delivered to the Society under Section 16 (2) notifications on 18.04.1991 and 04.11.1992. The defendant contends that the plaintiff's chain of title is through V. Gopalappa, who had no right to convey after acquisition. The society, after obtaining sanction in 2010, executed sale deeds in favour of his members, V. Selva Kumaran who sold to G. Narayan, who in turn sold to the defendant. The defendant relies on the earlier litigation O.S. No.3610/1998, which was filed by the society restraining V. Gopalappa and V. Ashwathappa from interfering with the society’s possession, which came to be decreed. RFA Nos.131/2007 and 2388/2006, preferred by V. Ashwathappa and V. Gopalappa respectively, were dismissed and liberty was given to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is averred that WP No.19765/2013 preferred by Gopalappa challenging the acquisition proceedings was dismissed, and confirmed in writ appeal and in SLP. Further, O.S. No.174/2013 filed by Srinivas Murthy-the vendor of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 plaintiff against the society was later withdrawn unconditionally. 5. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved possession and enjoyment of Site No.13 and the defendant failed to show the lawful right over the property and decreed the suit granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 7. The contention of the appellant/ defendant i. The entire land in Survey No.6/1A measuring 6 acres 12 guntas (including 2 guntas of Phot Karab), was acquired under the LA Act by preliminary notification under Section 4(1), which finds place at Ex.D.20 dated 03.01.1985, followed by the final notification under Section 6 dated 22.09.1986 under Ex.D.21 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 ii. Award was passed on 31.01.1989 under Ex.D.25 and possession was handed over on 18.04.1991 and 04.11.1992 under Exs.D.22 and D.23 to the Society. iii. The society formed the BDA-approved layout after sanction dated 04.03.2010, allotted sites and through registered sale deeds Exs.D.1 and D.2 title passed eventually to the defendant. iv. It is argued that Srinivas Murthy’s alleged vendor, V. Gopalappa, had already lost rights in the earlier litigations, i.e., a. O.S. No.3610/1998, a decree in favour of the society in a suit for permanent injunction and Gopalappa and Ashwathappa were restrained permanently from interfering with the society's possession, which finds place under Ex.D.26. b. The appeals in RFA Nos.131/2007 and 2388/2006 preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S No.3610/1998, also came to be dismissed at Ex.D.27. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 c. V. Gopalappa challenged the acquisition proceedings in WP No.19765/2011, which came to be dismissed, and the same is evident from Ex.D.28. d. The plaintiff’s vendor Srinivas Murthy himself filed O.S No.174/2013 but withdrew unconditionally, extinguishing his claim-Ex.P.24. e. Further, WP No.2231/2021 was filed seeking direction for enquiry into the complaints against the private respondents, who are the allottees of the society. The writ petition came to be dismissed and the Court noted that the repeated attempts by the same petitioner, when already the challenge to the acquisition proceedings was dismissed in WP No.19765/2013, upheld in writ appeal and before the Apex Court, the acquisition proceedings were valid and binding and the writ Court dismissed WP No.2231/2021 with cost, holding that it is an abuse of process. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 v. Thus, the litigation conduct of the plaintiff’s predecessors shows a deliberate and repetitive challenge despite the finality of the matter. vi. Hence, the plaintiff derived no valid title, and the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit, merely holding that the plaintiff is in possession while ignoring that the suit was also barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC. 8. The contention of the respondent/plaintiff: i. The plaintiff purchased Site No.13 in Survey No. 6/1A from Srinivas Murthy Ex.P.1 under the registered sale deed dated 31.05.2014. ii. The site was formed after conversion by the Deputy Commissioner's order at Ex. P.26 in the year 1992 and the layout approval by Grama Panchayath. iii. The plaintiff has put up building, obtained electricity and BWSSB water connection, and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 iv. The acquisition proceedings do not cover the suit property, which was converted and used for residential purpose. v. The conversion order and the Grama Panchayat approvals clearly indicate that the suit property was excluded from acquisition. vi. It is contended that res judicata does not apply, as the present suit property was not the subject matter in O.S. No.3610/1998 or writ proceedings. vii. Defendant is attempting to re-litigate through multiple interlocutory applications which were earlier rejected. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to protection of possession through permanent injunction as rightly held by the Trial Court. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are: “i. Whether the plaintiff derived any valid right or title in respect of Site No.13 in Survey - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 No.6/1A after the entire survey No.6/1A was acquired under the acquisition? ii. Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court calls for any interference?” 10. Survey No.6/1A of Kodigehalli Village originally measured 6 acres 12 guntas including 2 guntas phot karab. The plaintiff traces his chain of title from V. Gopalappa, who, according to the plaintiff, was one of the children of Muniyamma. Muniyamma, having purchased from Venkamma in 1972 an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas and having partitioned the land, V. Gopalappa received 1 acre and V. Ashwathappa received 1 acre. V Gopalappa obtained conversion from agriculture to residential use by a Deputy Commissioner's order dated 10.12.1992 and the layout was formed after the Grama Panchayat approval. Further, Site No.13, which was formed, was sold to Srinivas Murthy, who built a house and later the plaintiff purchased Site No.13 from Srinivas Murthy under registered sale deed dated 31.05.2014 under Ex.P.1. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 11. At this stage, it is relevant to state that preliminary notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued on 04.01.1985, covering the full 6 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No.6/1A under Ex.D.20, showing the khatedar as R. Sreenivasaiah. Final notification was issued under Section 6 (1) on 22.09.1986, at Ex.D.21 covering the entire same extent. The award at Ex.D.25 was passed on 28.01.1989, showing the entire 6 acres 12 guntas, deleting only 10 guntas. Possession in respect of 4 acres 12 guntas was taken under Section 16 (2) of the LA Act on 18.04.1991 under Ex.D.22 and the remaining 1 acre 30 guntas on 04.11.1992 under Ex.D.23. Thus, by the year 1992, the entire 6 acres 12 guntas absolutely vested in the State, free from all encumbrance and the possession was handed over to the society. V. Gopalappa seeks conversion in respect of 33 guntas in Sy. No.6/1A despite vesting and acquisition proceedings being confirmed and the Deputy Commissioner’s order is passed for conversion on 10.12.1992, which is after the possession was taken under - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 Section 16 (2) of the LA Act. It is on the strength of this conversion order, V Gopalappa is said to have formed layout and sold Site No.13 to Srinivas Murthy on 17.04.1997 under Ex.P.10 and Srinivas Murthy in turn has sold the property under Ex.P.1 in the year 2014. The conveyance by Gopalappa, Sreenivas Murthy and in turn in favour of the plaintiff is after the post-acquisition, which is void and conveyed no title. 12. It is also relevant to state here that several litigations were filed against the vendor of the plaintiff, which has been confirmed upto the Apex Court. The following is the litigation history: i. O.S. No.3610/1998-Ex.D.26 was filed by the society against V. Gopalappa and V. Ashwathappa for a permanent injunction. The suit property mentioned in O.S. No.3610/1998 is the entire extent, which reads as under: “SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.6/1-A situated at Kodigehalli Village, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore to the extent of 1 Acre & bounded on: East by : Sy.No.6/1-A & 6/1-B of Kodigehalli West by : Sy.No.6/1-A lands of Gopalappa North by : Road South by : Sy.No.6/2 & 6/3 of Kodigehalli. SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.6/1-A situated at Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore to the extent of 1 Acre & bounded on: East by : Sy.No.6/1-A lands of Ashwathappa West by : Sri. K.M.Narayanappas Land North by : Road South by : Sy.No.6/3 of Kodigehalli” The decree was passed restraining them from interfering with the society’s possession. ii. RFA Nos.131/2007 c/w 2388/2006 at Ex.D.27 were preferred by V. Aswathappa and V Gopalappa, whose appeals came to be dismissed, confirming the Society’s possession. However, liberty was granted only to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 challenge the acquisition proceedings. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “8. Considering these circumstances and also the writ petitions in relation to the acquisition proceedings being pending before this Court, it is appropriate to permit defendant Nos.1 and 2 to challenge the acquisition proceedings and to enable them to do so, status quo as on today between the parties be continued for limited period. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to challenge the acquisition proceedings as observed. Status quo as on today between the parties be continued for a period of two months. 9. In view of the disposal of the appeals, IA No.1/2013 filed in both the appeals do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) iii. WP No.19765/2013 was filed by V. Gopalappa seeking declaration that the property bearing Survey No.6/1A is not acquired by the respondent-authorities and the possession was never taken as contemplated under Section 16 (2) of the LA Act. The said writ petition came to - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 be dismissed (Ex.D.29), the operative portion reads as under: “2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court passed in W.A.No.17016/2011 and other connected appeals. It is also submitted that against the aforesaid judgment, a special leave petition was preferred before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 17.09.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the aforesaid statement of fact. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 02.08.2021 passed in W.A.No.17016/2011 and other connected appeals, this writ petition also fails and is hereby dismissed.” iv. O.S.No.174/2013 filed by Srinivas Murthy- plaintiff's vendor for injunction came to be withdrawn unconditionally on 09.07.2014, the operative portion of the order which is marked at Ex.P.24 reads as under: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 “Advocate for plaintiff files a memo stating that suit is not pressed. Hence, suit is dismissed has not pressed.” v. During the pendency of O.S. No.174/2013, the plaintiff purchased Site No.13 from Srinivas Murthy on 31.05.2014. vi. The present suit for injunction against the appellant herein. vii. I.A. was under Section 11 CPC by the defendant-appellant which was initially allowed and suit was dismissed as barred by principles of res judicata, against which, RFA No.675/2022 preferred by the respondent-plaintiff came to be allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, keeping res judicata open for trial. The operative portion of the order in RFA No.675/2022 reads as under: “i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the XXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru concurrent charge XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 (iii) Matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh by adjudicating upon all issues including issue regarding res judicata along with other issues at the time of final disposal of the suit. (iv) Having regard to the fact that the pleadings have been completed, issues are framed and trial of the suit has already commenced, I deem it just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate on or before 30.09.2022. (v) All rival contentions between the parties including the issue regarding res judicata and all other aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court without any further notice on 06.06.2022.” 13. The plaintiff's title flows directly through V. Gopalappa. Gopalappa's rights have been conclusively adjudicated in O.S. No.3610/1998, confirmed in RFA Nos.131/2007 c/w 2388/2006, WP No.19765/2013 and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 WP No.2231/2021, acquisition is upheld. Finality has been attained. Hence, the plaintiff litigating under the same title as Gopalappa is bound by the decisions rendered in the above and the present suit is hit by the principles of res judicata. The plaintiff relied on the conversion order of 1992, the subsequent layout and the sale deed under Ex.P.1. All the orders and the sale deeds are all post- acquisition and cannot override the legal vesting of the land in the society. The plaintiff has failed to establish that he is in possession and entitled to injunction. 14. On the other hand, the defendant has acquired right and possession from the society after the acquisition proceedings have been concluded. Layout sanctioned by BDA in 2010, sale in favour of V. Selva Kumaran under Ex.D1 and Selvakumara sold to G. Narayana under Ex.D.2 and Narayana in turn sold to the present defendant under Ex.D.3. Thus, the defendant holds title from the society who in turn had derived possession by acquisition. The Trial Court has erred in granting an injunction and ignored - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 the acquisition, vesting and the prior litigation by the vendor of the plaintiff. 15. The decisions placed reliance by the respondent in Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi1 (Kalyan Singh), the principle involved is that once a fact or issue has been finally decided, the same cannot be reopened at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings, and the doctrine of finality and res judicata within the same lis. The said decision relates to finality of orders within the same proceedings and the said decision goes against the respondent-plaintiff, as the present plaintiff cannot litigate afresh despite an earlier, independent suit and writ petition conclusively negating his predecessor’s title. Section 11 CPC extends to the parties litigating under the same title, not merely the same lis and hence, the decision placed reliance is not of any help to the respondent. 1 (2011) 11 SCC 786 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 16. In the decision of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs. and others2 (Anathula Sudhakar), a suit for bare injunction is maintainable where the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and the defendant has no lawful claim, declaration is not always necessary, if title is not in serious dispute. The said principle applies only when the plaintiff's possession is lawful. 17. In the instant case, there are acquisition proceedings and the possession as claimed by the plaintiff flows from a post-acquisition transaction by Gopalappa who had no subsistence title. Injunction cannot be granted to protect an unlawful possession, even if it is presumed that he is in possession against a true owner, i.e., the society, the principle applied in Anathula Sudhakar’s case would not be an aid to the respondent but in fact would be applicable to state that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable without declaration. 2 (2008) 4 SCC 594 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 18. In the other judgment, State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others3 (All India Manufacturers), was relating to the challenges to acquisition and scope of judicial review. Here the acquisition is long concluded, upheld in the proceedings which was challenged by Gopalappa and has attained finality. The plaintiff, deriving title through Gopalappa, cannot now collaterally attack or disregard acquisition. The Trial Court's reliance on possession is misdirected and unsustainable. 19. Considering the repeated attempts through Gopalappa, Srinivasa Murthy and now the plaintiff, this Court is inclined to impose a costs of Rs.25,000/- on the plaintiff-respondent. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks to waiver of the costs, with a warning, the costs imposed by this Court is being waived off. 3 AIR 2006 SC 1846 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34845 RFA No. 1803 of 2022 20. For the foregoing reasons, the points framed for consideration are answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is hereby allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 27.09.2022 in O.S. No.2911/2019, on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) is hereby set aside. The suit is dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26