- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1704 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI K.N. BASAVARADHYA S/O LATE K.N. NANJUNDARADYA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.1189/C, 4TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MOHANKUMARA M.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI LOKESH .S S/O LATE SADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SRI SUMAN S/O LATE SADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.202/3, SLV PARADISE, 1ST MAIN, KYALASANAHALLI, BYRTHI, BANGALORE-560077. ALSO AT: NO.66, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE-560003. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2025 PASSED IN Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 O.S.NO.3740/2022 ON THE FILE OF XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The matter is listed for admission. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is taken for final disposal. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2025 in O.S.No.3740/2022 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. Brief Facts: 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 workmen or anybody acting on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 4. The suit schedule property mentioned in suit is as under: “All that piece and parcel of property bearing site No.6 katha No.23/5, situated at card Road Magadi Main Road, within the lim of BBMP ward No.105, Bangalore city, Bangalore, measuring to all extent of East to West 40 feet, North to Sourt 60 feet, Totally measuring 2400 sq feet, bounded as follows: East by: KP Sadashivaiah Property West by: KP Rudrappa property North by: Magadi Main Road South by: Hosahalli Muniyappa property” (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ for short) 5. The plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property measuring 2400 square feet, baring site No.6, katha No.23/5. He asserts that the suit property was originally acquired by K. Umadevi, under a registered Will dated 18.04.1992, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 executed by her parents K.P. Mallikarjunaiah and her mother M. Gangamma. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the katha was transferred to the name of the wife, and she was put in possession of the suit property. 6. It is pleaded that Umadevi died on 13.05.2015, and thereafter, the plaintiff’s name was duly entered in the municipal records under katha No.23/5 on 15.09.2015. Since then, the plaintiff contends that he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 7. According to him, when he attempted to put up a compound wall around the suit property, the defendants having no manner of right, title and interest therein, unlawfully attempted to interfere with his possession and obstructed construction. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for permanent injunction. 8. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the property bearing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 Sy.No.5, measuring 6 acres 31 guntas situated in Jodi Jadehalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk belonged to Girijamma, to an extent of 5/8 share. Upon her death, her daughter namely Seethamma inherited the property, and thereafter, Puttamma (grand daughter of Girijamma) inherited the said property in the line of chain of survivorship. 9. It is further contended that in the year 1964, the then City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) issued notification to acquire Sy.No.5 and surrounding properties. However, as the acquisition proceedings were subsequently challenged, they came to be dropped. Thereafter, Puttamma transferred her right, title and interest in respect of the property bearing old Sy.No.5, new Sy.No.5/10 situated at Jodi Jadehalli, Kasaba Hobli, to B.P.Hanumanthaih under a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1971. It is contended that B.P.Hanumanthaih formed a residential layout consisting of 10 sites of various dimensions out of Sy.No.5. Out of the said layout, he sold - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 site bearing No.10 formed in Sy.No.5, new No.5/10, measuring in total 9,500 square feet with 2 square feet constructed area in favour of one Kumari. Sirisrinivas represented by her guardian K.Srinivasa under a registered sale deed. Since then, K.Srinivasa is in a lawful possession and enjoyment of site No.10. It is further pleaded that K.Srinivasa, has been running a business in the said premises, availing bank loans against the property. 10. The defendants allege that the plaintiff is a land grabber, that he has concocted and that he has no manner of right, title and interest whatsoever over the alleged suit property. 11. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1, marked documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 12. The trial Court upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that: i. The plaintiff has failed to prove the identity, existence, location and situation of the suit property and that there is no consistency and coherency in the documents produced by the plaintiff. ii. The trial Court further observed that in the absence of the proof of correct description of the suit property, it is not possible for the Court to hold that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. iii. The encumbrance certificates marked at Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 do not make any reference to site No.6 and therefore, do not support the plaintiff’s case. iv. The Northern and Southern boundaries as pleaded in the plaint do not tally with the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 description of the property contained in the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. v. The plaintiff has not produced any original deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property prior to Ex.P20, nor any layout plan to show the craving out of site No.6 from Sy.No.5/2. By the judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the trial Court has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the suit. It is urged that the appellant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property. It is urged that the appellant is in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property since 1992, which is failed to be appreciated by the trial Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 15. Having considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case?” 16. The plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of the suit property. On the other hand, the defendants disputed the existence, locality and situation of the suit property. The plaintiff relied upon encumbrance certificates at Ex.P10 and Ex.P11. However, the trial Court on due appreciation of evidence, found that there is no reference to site No.6 in any of the documents produced by the plaintiff. The defendants on the contrary have established their claim of ownership and possession in respect of site No.10, formed in old Sy.No.5, new No.5/10, as per their title deeds. 17. It is thus clear that the suit schedule property described by the plaintiff and the property held by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 defendants are distinct. The plaintiff contended that the suit property, namely site No.6, forms part of Sy.No.5/2. Such a contention, however was not corroborated by any cogent documentary evidence. 18. The plaintiff has also failed to produce any material to show that katha No.23/5 was ever assigned to site No.6 in Sy.No.5/2. It is settled principle of law that mutations entries are maintained for fiscal purposes only and do not confer title. In the absence of the original title deeds pertaining to the suit property or a layout plan indicating the existence of site no.6 in Sy.No.5/2, the plaintiff has failed to establish his right, title or possession. 19. Mere entry in the record of rights would not indicate his right, title and interest over the suit property. The law is well settled that the mutation entries are only maintained for fiscal purposes, to ensure that the land revenue is paid by the person whose name is recorded thereon. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 20. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendants have not produced any document to establish the identity, existence or location of the property claimed by them, it is to be borne in mind that the plaintiff, who approached the Court seeking permanent injunction, burden of proving the existence of the suit property and his lawful possession thereof was upon him. The plaintiff cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendants in order to prove his suit for permanent injunction. In the absence of proof regarding existence, identity and possession of the suit property, it is not possible for either the trial Court or this Court to accept the plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial Court warrants no interference. Accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal stands dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31843 RFA No. 1704 of 2025 ii. The judgment and decree dated 22.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.3740/2022 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stands confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8