- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32790 RFA No. 793 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.793 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. MADHURI S/O SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.407, PEENYA PLANTATION, SIDDARTHANAGAR, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU-560015. …APPELLANT (BY SRI HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SUJATHA .P W/O PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.715, PEENYA PLANTATION, NEAR BETHAL CHURCH, SIDDARTHANAGAR, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU-560015. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.716/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32790 RFA No. 793 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present regular first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2023 in O.S. No.716/2020 on the file of the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though the respondent is duly served, he has remained absent both before the trial Court and before this Court. In the absence of contest, the case of the appellant is advised to be considered on the available material. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial Court, while dismissing the suit, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32790 RFA No. 793 of 2023 has failed to appreciate that the appellant was put in possession of the suit schedule premises as a lessee, and has continued in possession since 2014. The grievance of the appellant is that, despite the lease deed being disputed and criminal proceedings pending, his actual possession of the property cannot be overlooked, and at the very least the Court ought to have safeguarded his possession from being disturbed otherwise than by the due process of law. 4. Brief facts: The plaintiff took the ground floor on lease from the defendant. With the consent of the defendant, it is claimed that the plaintiff has constructed the first floor at his own cost at Rs.2,16,000/-. Additionally, he paid Rs.1,25,000/- at the time of lease, Rs.60,000/- to defendant’s son for motorbike and Rs.20,000/- to the defendant in cash for her needs. In all, the plaintiff stated that he spent Rs.4,25,000/- towards construction of first floor and payments and since 2014 he has been in possession and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32790 RFA No. 793 of 2023 running a stationary shop. The defendant allegedly trying to illegally dispossess by filing false police complaints, resulting in criminal cases against him. The suit is for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the scheduled property. 5. The trial Court recorded findings that the alleged lease deed at Ex.P.1 was undated, unregistered and disputed as a forged document as per the plaint averments itself and therefore it was not proved. Ex.P.2 - the photographs and Ex.P.3-newspaper extract were insufficient to establish the construction of the first floor. The lease period mentioned in Ex.P.1 had expired in December 2020 and there was no evidence of renewal. Further, no independent evidence of construction or purchase of building materials was produced. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has not established his lawful possession or entitlement to injunction, and dismissed the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32790 RFA No. 793 of 2023 6. Point for consideration: “Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff warrants any interference in the facts and circumstances of this case?” 7. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court insofar as the plaintiff failed to establish his plea of construction or continuation of leasehold rights by proper documentary proof. The dismissal of the prayer for perpetual injunction is therefore justified. 8. However, the trial Court has not addressed the settled principle of law that possession, once admitted or established, cannot be disturbed except by authority of law. Even assuming that the lease period has expired or that a dispute exists regarding title, the remedy of the landlord or owner is to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of possession. Forcible dispossession is not permitted under law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32790 RFA No. 793 of 2023 9. The Apex Court, in the case of Lallu Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh1 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh) and Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao2 (Krishna Ram Mahale), has categorically held that even a trespasser in settled possession is entitled to protection of the Court against forcible dispossession, and the true owner must take recourse of lawful proceedings. The same principles apply with greater force to a tenant or lessee whose possession, though disputed, has not been shown to be lawfully terminated or recovered through due process of law. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was inducted into the property and has been in actual possession for a number of years. The respondent, having chosen to remain absent, has not demonstrated any lawful recovery action. Hence, while dismissal of the suit is to be maintained, an observation protecting 1 AIR 1968 SC 620 2 (1989) 4 SCC 131 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32790 RFA No. 793 of 2023 possession until dispossession through lawful means is warranted to balance equities and the point framed for consideration is answered and hence the following: Order i. The appeal is disposed of. ii. The dismissal of the suit by the trial Court is confirmed. It is, however, observed and clarified that the appellant-plaintiff shall not be dispossessed from the suit property except in accordance with law and through due process of competent Court. iii. This observation shall not prejudice the right of the respondent to seek recovery of possession by filing appropriate proceedings. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17